LAWS(APH)-2020-12-154

SPARTEK CERAMICS INDIA LIMITED Vs. APPELLATE JOINT COMMISSIONER

Decided On December 03, 2020
Spartek Ceramics India Limited Appellant
V/S
Appellate Joint Commissioner Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the issue involved in all the cases being one and the same, they are dealt with taking Writ Petition No.20784 of 2020 as a lead petition.

(2.) The present writ petition came to be filed seeking issuance of writ of certiorari to declare the order of the 1st respondent dated 1.10.2020, for the assessment year 2004-2005 under CST Act, in insisting payment of 12.5% of the balance tax shown in the endorsement of the 2nd respondent dated 14.8.2020, as illegal, arbitrary and incorrect.

(3.) The petitioner herein was a registered dealer manufacturing ceramic tiles under the provisions of the APGST Act and also CST Act. The assessment for the year 2004-2005 was finalized by the assessing authority on 14.3.2007, raising a demand of Rs.1,46,23,466/-, which, according to the petitioner, was only due to absence of statutory F-forms, as the movement of goods to branches of the petitioner which are outside the State and not by way of sale. It was further stated that the petitioner became a sick industrial company and was referred to BIFR under the provisions of SICA. The application made under Section 15 of SICA was registered as Case No.63 of 2006. Vide proceedings dated 20.10.2016, BIFR sanctioned a scheme for rehabilitation of the petitioner company. It is stated that in the sanctioned scheme, the Commercial Tax Department claimed a sum of Rs.441.57 lacs due from the petitioner, which is the amount due as per the assessment orders passed under the CST assessment for the years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 & 2004-2005 put together. According to the petitioner, the scheme permits payment of undisputed sales tax dues to all the State Government departments in instalments. In so far as the amount claimed by the Commercial Tax Department is concerned, it is stated that the dispute is only due to the non-submission of the statutory declarations. Having regard to the fact that the company has become sick in the year 2005-2006 itself and since the petitioner-company was closed in the year 2005, even appeal could not be filed against the assessment orders in time.