SPARTEK CERAMICS INDIA LTD. Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeals filed for the years 2000 -01 to 2004 -05; altogether five appeals, by Ext.P8 order for reason only of the petitioner having not produced proof of admitted tax paid. The subsequent appeal filed before the Tribunal also was dismissed for the very same reason. In fact, it is a condition as per the statute, for filing an appeal, that the admitted tax has to be paid. There can be no hardship caused to the petitioner because admitted tax would take in that specified in the 'returns' filed by the petitioner, in the respective assessment years which definitely would be collected tax and which has to be paid before 15th of the subsequent month; when the statute mandates the filing of the return for the preceding month.

(2.) THE petitioner's contention is that the petitioner does not have any proof of remittance for reason of floods and the petitioner's office being inundated on that account. Petitioner also has an alternate contention that the petitioner Company having been declared sick under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short SICA), the properties are saved from any recovery as per Section 22 of the SICA.

(3.) IN the present case, there is no recovery sought to be made from the petitioner; even according to the petitioner. Petitioner's contention is only that since no recovery can be effected, the petitioner's liability does not arise at present. That argument cannot be countenanced. It is the petitioner's option to file an appeal but on exercising such option; to be entitled for the appeal to be maintained; compliance of the third proviso to Section 34 of the Kerala General Sales Tax 1963, is mandatory. The admitted tax has to be paid though no distress, execution or like recovery can be effected against the company's property. The registration as a sick industry under SICA does not efface the liability and Section 22; for the period covered and spent under SICA, keeps the recovery proceedings in abeyance. If the petitioner choses to file an appeal, necessarily statutory mandate has to be complied with and the admitted tax paid. In such circumstances, petitioner, for the purpose of filing an appeal, cannot be said to have any protection under Section 22 of SICA; to act in derogation of the statutory compulsion to prove payment of the admitted tax.