9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and Sub- District Anand. (c) That such other and further directions may be given as the Hon'ble Court may deem necessary and expedient. (d) Costs of this Application be provided for." 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ashok L. Shah for the applicants, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mrs. V.S.Pathak for respondent No.2 and learned advocate Mr. Bhargav Hasurkar for respondent No.1 - Official Liquidator. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Shah appearing for the applicants submitted that M/s. Beclawat of India Ltd. was ordered to be wound up by an order of this Court passed on 22nd December 1992 in Company Petition Nos.62 of 1991 to 64 of 1991. The Official Liquidator thereafter had taken over the possession of the assets and properties of the company in liquidation. Thereafter, this Court passed an order on 21.03.2003 in O.L.R. No. 41 of 2003, whereby a sale committee was appointed for the sale of the assets and properties of the company in liquidation. Different parcels of freehold land of the company in liquidation were put to sale, the details of which are given in para 2 of the affidavit in support of the Judge's Summons. The sale committee invited offers for the purchase of land, b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 wrote a letter dated 12.1.2011 to Deputy Sales Tax Commissioner, Anand to issue no objection letter for transferring the lands in the name of applicant No.1. However, he did not respond to the said letter. Therefore, application was given to the office of Mamlatdar for getting the said lands transferred in the name of applicant No.1 pursuant to the deed of conveyance dated 29.10.2004. However, the said application was rejected on 06.08.2011. 7. Learned advocate Mr. A.L.Shah for the applicants contended that the applicants are not liable to pay the sales tax dues of the company in liquidation in respect of the period prior to the date of liquidation. He contended that the lands were sold and conveyed to the applicant No.1 company as per the terms and conditions stated in the order confirming the sale as well as deed of conveyance dated 29.10.2004. As per condition No.7 of order dated 06.05.2004 passed in O.L.R. No. 22 of 2004, the applicants are liable to pay and bear only the taxes in respect of the lands. The past sales tax dues of the company in liquidation are not taxes in respect of the land of the company in liquidation and therefore the applicants are not liable to bear an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court in the case of Rajratna Naranbhai Mills Co. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Petlad [1991 (3) SCC 283] and order dated 28.01.2010 passed by this Court in Company Application No. 464 of 2009. 10. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Bhargav Hasurkar appearing for the Official Liquidator has submitted that applicant No.2 was a successful bidder and therefore sale was confirmed in his favour by this Court. He paid the entire amount of the sale consideration and therefore the possession of the land of the company in liquidation was handed over to him by the Official Liquidator. The Official Liquidator has issued letter to the Deputy Sales Tax Commissioner, Anand on 22nd September 2014 requesting them to file their claim in the office of the Official Liquidator but the reply from the Deputy Sales Tax Commissioner was not received till the filing of the report. He further contended that the claim of sales tax would be considered by the Official Liquidator under Section 530 of the Companies Act after making the payment to the workers and secured creditors in full. 11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mrs. V.S.Pathak appearing for the respondent No.2 mainly submitted that the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 004. When the applicants have requested the revenue authorities for mutation of their names in the revenue record, it was refused on the ground that charge of the Sales Tax Department (respondent No.2) has been recorded in the revenue record and there is a claim of the sales tax authorities against the company in liquidation. 14. In view of the aforesaid broad facts of the present case, the only contention which is taken by the learned Assistant Government Pleader on behalf of respondent No.2 is that as per condition Nos. 7 and 8 of the terms and conditions of order dated 06.05.2004 passed by this Court in O.L.R. No.22 of 2004, the purchaser is required to pay all the taxes in relation to the property including all outstanding dues. At this stage, it would be appropriate to reproduce relevant condition Nos. 7 and 8 of the order dated 06.05.2004 passed in O.L.R. No.22 of 2004, which read as under" "[7] The purchaser shall pay all the taxes in relation to property: levied/leviable by the State Government or any local authority in relation to the company in liquidation. It is hereby made abundantly clear that such dues shall include all outstanding dues. [8] The purchaser sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor, or if no such appointment was made, the date of the winding up order, unless in either case the company had commenced to be wound up voluntarily before that date; and (ii)xxxxx " 18. Thus, from the aforesaid provisions of law it is clear that the debts due and payable so as to claim priority must be appropriated to the period within 12 months next before the relevant date and their liability for payment must be founded during that period and no other. In other words, it can be said that the State has priority over debts, liability and obligation of which was borne within the time frame of those 12 months and as such due and becoming due and payable within those 12 months next before the relevant date, ascertainable it necessary later, if not already ascertained. The words "having become due and payable within 12 months next before the relevant date" need to be understood to mean putting a restriction or cordoning of the amount for which priority is claimable and not in respect of each and every debt on account of taxes, rates and cesses etc. which may be outstanding at that time and payable. Thus, as and when the claim is lodged by the Sales Tax Department before the Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und up by the High Court on 22.2.2002 made in Company Petition No. 354 of 1999 whereas, as already recorded, the assessment was framed on 30.6.2003. In the circumstances, any demand raised pursuant to such assessment after the order of winding up cannot claim priority in light of provisions of sections 529A and 530 of the Companies Act, 1956 read together. As already laid down by the High Court, the State Government has to lodge its claim with the Official Liquidator in accordance with law along with all other Unsecured Creditors. 6. As a consequence any entry made pursuant to such assessment framed after order of winding up cannot be sustained. Revenue Authorities were therefore, not justified in making the aforesaid entries as appearing in the revenue record as reflected by 7/12 extract placed on record. Accordingly, respondent authorities, more particularly respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are hereby directed to cancel the aforesaid entries registering the so called charge of Sales Tax Department and the Gram Panchayat tax as arrears of land revenue to ensure that the applicant gets free and clear marketable title qua the property of the Company in liquidation purchased vide order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
