KANORIA DYECHEM LTD Vs. SALES TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is challenging the coercive recovery of sales tax dues by the respondent -authorities, on the ground that in view of the pendency of the petitioner company's reference under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'SICA' for short), the respondents cannot make any coercive recovery.

(2.) IN response to the notice, on behalf of the respondents, affidavit -in -reply has been filed contending that when the petitioner is recovering sales tax from its customers there is no reason why the petitioner should be granted protection against the coercive recovery. In rejoinder, Mr. Kaji for the petitioner points out that as per the minutes of the proceedings drawn by the BIFR for the hearing held on January 3, 2001, cut -off date for crystallization of the dues of the company is fixed as June 30, 2001, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be required to pay up sales tax for the period prior to June 30, 2001.

(3.) IN view of the aforesaid statement and discussion, we partly allow the petition quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated January 11, 2001, and January 19, 2001 (annexure 'B' collectively) restraining the respondents from recovering the sales tax from the petitioner for the period prior to June 30, 2001, except in accordance with the BIFR scheme and except with the prior permission of the BIFR. We further direct the petitioner -company to inform the respondent -authorities about the progress and/or failure of the scheme before the BIFR and the final outcome of the proceedings before the BIFR as and when they stand concluded before the BIFR.