IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8254 of 2010(F)
1. SDF INDUSTRIES LTD.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT)
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :15/03/2010
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
---------------------------
W.P(C) No. 8254 of 2010-F
----------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
“i) Declare that, in view of Sec.22 of the SIC Act,
1985 and Ext.P6 order which is still in force, coercive steps
taken against the petitioner vide Ext.P9 to Ext.P12 by the 1st
respondent are illegal and unenforceable.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ order or direction directing respondent 1, 2
& 4 to refrain from proceeding with coercive steps
evidenced by Ext.P9 to Ext.P12 till the 5th respondent
finalises the Scheme for rehabilitation of the petitioner
Company under Section 17 of the SIC Act.
iii) Pass appropriate orders directing the 3rd
respondent to refrain from handing over any amounts to the
respondents 1, 2 & 4 which is legally due to the petitioner.
and
this Hon’bleto
iv) issue such other writ, order or direction as
Court deems fit and proper.”
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
proceedings for revival of the petitioner industry is pending
consideration before the fifth respondent. After considering the
scope of the Scheme, Ext.P6 order was passed by the fifth
respondent with the following directions:
W.P(C) No. 8254 of 2010-F 2
“i)
1.10.2009 is treated as withdrawn.
The scheme circulated byThe BIFRBoard’sorder dated
vide
office may
examine the revised DRS submitted by SBT(OA) vide their letter
dated 5.12.2009, after the company submits its audited balance
sheet as on 31.12.2009 and OA makes further changes, if any,
required in the revised DRS submitted.
ii) The cut-of date (COD) in the DRS is to be taken as
31.12.2009.
iii) The next hearing will be held on 23.3.2010 and it
may be cancelled, if the Board is able to circulate a fully tied-up
DRS, before that date.”
3. Subsequently, M.A 46 was filed by the Department
before the fifth respondent seeking to vary Ext.P2 in the manner as
desired therein. After considering the contents of the said
application, the fifth respondent passed Ext.P7 order, whereby the
order dated 19.5.2008 ie. Ext.P2 was modified, permitting the
assessing authority to exercise all powers conferred under the
relevant State Act to enforce payment of current turnover tax due
from the company after 19.5.2008.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that there was no
request for the respondents to have varied Ext.P6 in any manner and
that the M.A was filed only to vary Ext.P2. It is pointed out that
Ext.P6 still stands, wherein specific direction has been given to the
parties concerned enabling the petitioner to submit audited balance
sheet ‘as on 31.12.2009’ and the cut-off date in the DRS to be
W.P(C) No. 8254 of 2010-F 3
reckoned as on ‘31.12.2009’. The learned counsel further submits
that the grievance has been taken up by the petitioner, by way of
Ext.P8 before the fifth respondent, and that the same is still
pending. However, taking note of the relative claims put forth, this
Court finds it fit and proper to have the matter to be finalised by the
fifth respondent in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible
and as such no separate notice needs to be issued to the fifth
respondent as to the merits involved.
5. In the above circumstances, the fifth respondent is
directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8
application in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondents and this shall be
done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear
that, the recovery will stand confined to the subsequent period after
31.12.2009 and the remaining liability shall be satisfied, subject to
the further orders to be passed by the fifth respondent on Ext.P8.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
JUDGE
W.P(C) No. 8254 of 2010-F 4
ab