{"id":25586,"date":"2008-07-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-b-v-v-paper-industries-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-ii-on-18-july-2008"},"modified":"2016-04-16T10:24:45","modified_gmt":"2016-04-16T04:54:45","slug":"ms-b-v-v-paper-industries-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-ii-on-18-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-b-v-v-paper-industries-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-ii-on-18-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.B.V.V.Paper Industries Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Officer – Ii on 18 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S.B.V.V.Paper Industries Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Officer – Ii on 18 July, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 18\/07\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI\n\nW.P.(MD)No.1522 OF 2004\nand\nW.P.(MD)No.1523 of 2004\nand\nWPMP (MD)Nos.1509 and 1511 of 2004\n\nM\/s.B.V.V.Paper Industries Ltd.,\nRepresented by its Manager\nL.Chandrasekar\n148-D, Palani Road,\nUdumalpet - 642 126.\t\t\t    ... Petitioner in\n\t\t\t\t\t\tboth WPs'.\nVs.\t\n\nThe Commercial Tax Officer - II\nOffice of the Commercial Tax Department\nNear Chellam Illam, Shanmughapuram,\nPalani - 624 601.\t\t\t    ... Respondent in\n\t\t\t\t\t\tW.P.1522\/2004\n\n\nThe Executive Engineer\nPublic Works Department\nAmaravathi, River Basin Division,\nKarur.\t\t\t\t\t    ... Respondent in\n\t\t\t\t\t        W.P.1523\/2004\t\n\nPRAYER IN W.P.(MD)NO.1522 OF 2004\n\nWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the\nConstitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, call\nfor the records of the respondent by proceedings in NAKA No.1811\/04 A3 Rc\n5360536 dated 30.07.2004 and quash the same.\n\t\nPRAYER IN W.P.(MD)NO.1523 OF 2004\n\nWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the\nConstitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, call\nfor the records of the respondent by proceedings in letter No.38\/2003\/95 M dated\n20.05.2004 and quash the same.\n\n!For Petitioner  ...\tMr.K.Hema Karthikeyan\n\n^For Respondents ...\tMr.V.Rajasekaran\n\t\t\tSpecial Govt. Pleader\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\t\tHeard Mr.K.Hema Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the
\npetitioner and Mr.V.Rajasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing
\nfor the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2.The writ petitioner company is a Public Limited Company operating
\nfrom the year 1989 onwards, engaged in manufacture and sale of finished paper,
\nnewsprint and other ancillary products.  The petitioner company has also
\nregistered under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 and Central Sales
\nTax Act, 1956.  The petitioner company has become sick, since it could not meet
\nout the statutory requirements, a reference was filed before the Board for
\nIndustrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter called as BIFR), under
\nSection 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985
\n(hereinafter referred as “the SICA Act”) for declaring the company as “sick
\ncompany” and also for effecting rehabilitation.  It is stated that BIFR by an
\norder dated 09.05.2001 has declared the petitioner Company as “sick company” and
\nappointed IDBI as its operational agency as per Section 17(3) of the SICA Act,
\nto examine the viability of settlement of the scheme as a rehabilitary measure.
\nThere was also an order passed under Section 22A of the SICA Act, restraining
\nthe petitioner’s company from disposing of any assets without getting consent
\nfrom BIFR. In respect of the due regarding the sales tax amount payable, which
\nis to the extent of Rs.5,05,30,050\/-, the respondent in W.P.(MD)No.1522 of 2004,
\nviz, the Commercial Tax Officer- II, Palani, has issued a Distraint Order by
\nexercising the powers under Section 8 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3.Likewise, in respect of the amount due Rs.49,34,032\/-, regarding
\ndrawing of water from Amaravathi River, after obtaining due permission from the
\nPublic Works Department, the respondent in W.P.(MD)No.1523 of 2004, viz., the
\nExecutive Engineer, Public Works Department, has issued an impugned order dated
\n20.05.2004, directing the petitioner Company to pay Rs.49,34,032\/-,  being the
\namount for having drawn water from Amaravathi River.  The amount not having been
\npaid from the year 1997 to till date, the respondent \/ Public Works Department,
\nhas directed the petitioner to pay the said amount of Rs.49,34,032\/- before
\n31.05.2004, failing which, the company will be restrained from taking water.
\nAdmittedly, the process of the Company has come to an end and the matter is
\npending before the BIFR and the scheme is yet to be formulated.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t4.In such circumstances, the question has to be decided in this case
\nis as to whether the respondents are entitled to proceed to recover the amounts
\nfrom the assets of the Company without resorting to the provisions of the SICA
\nAct, namely, by obtaining necessary permission from B.I.F.R,  wherein the matter
\nis pending.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t5.Section 22 of the SICA Act, suspends the operation of any  legal
\nproceedings or contract entered with such sick Companies, which is declared as
\n“sick company” under the SICA Act, till the proceedings under the SICA Act are
\ncompleted.  The proceedings under the SICA Act, is by reference to the BIFR.
\nSection 22 of the SICA Act reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“22.Suspension of legal proceedings, contracts, etc.- (1) Where in respect of an
\nindustrial company, an inquiry under section 16 is pending or any scheme
\nreferred to under section 17 is under preparation or consideration or a
\nsanctioned scheme is under implementation or where an appeal under section 25
\nrelating to an industrial company is pending, then, notwithstanding anything
\ncontained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or any other law or the
\nmemorandum and articles of association of the industrial company or any other
\ninstrument having effect under the said Act or other law, no proceedings for the
\nwinding up of the industrial company or for execution, distress or the like
\nagainst any of the properties of the industrial company or for the appointment
\nof a receiver in respect thereof [and no suit for the recovery of money or for
\nthe enforcement of any security against the industrial company or of any
\nguarantee in respect of any loans or advance granted to the industrial company]
\nshall lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the Board or,
\nas the case may be, the Appellate Authority.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2) Where the management of the sick industrial company is taken over or
\nchanged [in pursuance of any scheme sanctioned under section 18],
\nnotwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or
\nany other law or in the memorandum and articles of association of such company
\nor any instrument having effect under the said Act or other law-\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) it shall not be lawful for the shareholders of such company or any
\nother person to nominate or appoint any person to be a director of the company;\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) no resolution passed at any meeting of the shareholders of such
\ncompany shall be given effect to unless approved by the Board.\n<\/p>\n
\t(3) [Where an inquiry under section 16 is pending or any scheme referred
\nto in section 17 is under preparation or during the period] of consideration of
\nany scheme under section 18 or where any such scheme is sanctioned thereunder,
\nfor due implementation of the scheme, the Board may by order declare with
\nrespect to the sick industrial company concerned that the operation of all or
\nany of the contracts, assurances of property, agreements, settlements, awards,
\nstanding orders or other instruments in force, to which such sick industrial
\ncompany is a party or which may be applicable to such sick industrial company
\nimmediately before the date of such order, shall remain suspended or that all or
\nany of the rights, privileges, obligations and liabilities accruing or arising
\nthereunder before the said date, shall remain suspended or shall be enforceable
\nwith such adoptions and in such manner as may be specified by the Board:\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that such declaration shall not be made for a period exceeding
\ntwo years which may be extended by one year at a time, so, however, that the
\ntotal period shall not exceed seven years in the aggregate.\n<\/p>\n
\t(4) Any declaration made under sub-section (3) with respect to a sick
\nindustrial company shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the
\nCompanies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or any other law, the memorandum and articles
\nof association of the company or any instrument having effect under the said Act
\nor other law or any agreement or any decree or order of a court, tribunal,
\nofficer or other authority or of any submission, settlement or standing order
\nand accordingly,-\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) any remedy for the enforcement of any right, privilege, obligation and
\nliability suspended or modified by such declaration, and all proceedings
\nrelating thereto pending before any court, tribunal, officer or other authority
\nshall remain stayed or be continued subject to such declaration; and<\/p>\n
\t(b) on the declaration ceasing to have effect-\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) any right privilege, obligation or liability so remaining suspended or
\nmodified, shall become revived and enforceable as if the declaration had never
\nbeen made; and<\/p>\n
\t(ii) any proceeding so remaining stayed shall be proceeded with, subject
\nto the provisions of any law which may then be in force, from the stage which
\nhad been reached when the proceedings became stayed.\n<\/p>\n
\t(5) In computing the period of limitation for the enforcement of any
\nright, privilege, obligation or liability, the period during which it or the
\nremedy for the enforcement thereof remains suspended under this section shall be
\nexcluded”.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t6.The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in similar circumstances, regarding the
\nconduct of the State of Orissa, to proceed to recover the tax amount due under
\nOrissa Sales Tax Act, 1949, against a Company, which is pending rehabilitatory
\nmeasure under the SICA Act, in Tata Davy Ltd., etc., Vs. State of Orissa and
\nothers reported in (JT 1997 S.C. 216), while considering the contention raised
\non behalf of the Government, namely, the Commercial Tax Department that the
\ntaxing power conferred on the State in list II, entry 54 of Schedule 7 of the
\nConstitution of India, is an exclusive power of the State, and therefore, the
\nterm used under Section 22(1) of the SICA Act “any other law” should exclude the
\npower of the State Government in recovery of the tax amount, has rejected the
\nsaid contentions and ultimately held that under Section 22(1) of the SICA Act,
\nwhich is a Central Act, unless and until the permission is obtained from BIFR,
\nno coercive steps to be taken against the sick industries in respect of recovery
\nof arrears of tax.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in JT 1997 S.C. 216 cited supra,
\nhas held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“10.Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Section 22(1) of the
\nCentral Act should be so read as not to interfere with the exclusive power of
\nthe States to legislate under Entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the
\nConstitution in respect of sales tax.  In his submission, the words “any other
\nlaw” in Section 22(1) of the Central Act must be so read as to exclude all laws
\non List II subjects, for Parliament must be assumed to know its limitations
\nLearned Counsel cited the judgment of this Court in Deputy Commercial Tax
\nOfficer & Ors., v. Corromandal Pharmaceuticals & Ors., JT<\/a> 1997 (3) SC 660 =
\n1997(2) SCALE 640, as supporting his case.\n<\/p>\n
11.The Vallabh Glass Works judgment covers these appeals.  Arrears of taxes and
\nthe like due from sick industrial companies that satisfy the conditions set out
\nin Section 22(1) of the Central Act cannot be recovered by coercive process
\nunless the said Board gives its consent thereto”.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t7.In fact, that was the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
\neven prior to the said judgment.  That judgment was in The Gram Panchayat and
\nanother, v. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd., and others, reported in AIR 1990 SC
\n1017.  That was a case regarding the Panchayat in taking steps to recover the
\nproperty tax arrears against the Company declared as “sick company”, under the
\nSICA Act.  The State Government has proceeded to recover by virtue of the powers
\nconferred under Section 129 of Bombay Village Panchayat Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t8.There also, a similar contention was raised that it is a
\nconstitutional obligation of the Government to recover the tax amount and that
\nshould not be curtailed by the provisions of Section 22(1) of the SICA Act.
\nRejecting the said contention, the Supreme Court has held that when once a
\ncompany is subject to the proceedings under Sections 16 and  17 of the SICA Act,
\nnot only that winding up of the industrial Company is put an end to but also any
\nproceedings in execution or any distress proceedings taken against the
\nproperties of the sick industrial company, including the appointment of any
\nreceivers in respect of any claim are also put an end to, however, subject to
\nthe consent and order obtained from the BIFR. In fact, the Supreme Court has
\nheld that it may be against the principles of equity, if the creditor is not
\nallowed to recover the amount due, especially, when the creditor happens to be
\nthe Government, to drive them to go the the BIFR for getting a sanction in
\nrespect of the statutory amount due but nevertheless, the Supreme Court has held
\nthat the Board has got discretionary power, since the concept and basis of the
\nSICA Act, is not merely to take a supervisory role regarding the sick industries
\nbut also to give a solution by way of re-habilitatory measures.  In view of the
\nsaid matter, the Supreme Court has ultimately held that such proceedings can be
\ncontinued only with the approval and consent of BIFR.  The relevant portion is
\nas follows-:\n<\/p>\n
“7.  Section 22(i) provides that in case the enquiry under S.16 is pending or
\nany scheme referred to under S.17 is under preparation or consideration by the
\nBoard or any appeal under S.25 is pending then certain proceedings against the
\nsick industrial company are to be suspended or presumed to be suspended.  The
\nnature of the proceedings which are automatically suspended are: (1) Winding up
\nof the industrial company; (2) Proceedings for execution, distress or the like
\nagainst the properties of sick industrial company and (3) Proceedings for the
\nappointment of Receiver.  The proceedings in respect of these matters could,
\nhowever, be continued against the sick industrial company with the consent or
\napproval of the Board or of the Appellate Authority as the case may be.\n<\/p>\n
\t8……\n<\/p>\n
9……\n<\/p>\n
10.  In the light of the steps taken by the Board Under Ss.16 and 17 of the Act,
\nno proceedings for execution, distress or the like proceedings against any of
\nthe properties of the company shall lie or be proceeded further except with the
\nconsent of the Board.  Indeed, there would be automatic suspension of such
\nproceedings against the company’s properties.  As soon as the inquiry under S.16
\nis ordered by the Board, the various proceedings set out under sub-section (1)
\nof S.22 would be deemed to have been suspended.\n<\/p>\n
11.  It may be against the principles of equity if the creditors are not allowed
\nto recover their dues from the company, but such creditors may approach the
\nBoard for permission to proceed against the company for the recovery of their
\ndues \/ outstandings \/ overdues or arrears by whatever name it is called.  The
\nBoard at its discretion may accord its approval for proceeding against the
\ncompany.  If the approval is not granted, the remedy is not extinguished.  It is
\nonly postponed.  Sub-Section (5) of S.22 provides for exclusion of the period
\nduring which the remedy is suspended while computing the period of limitation
\nfor recovering the dues.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t9.In the light of the above said decisions of the Supreme Court,
\nhaving laid down law in this regard, the first Bench of this Court in Artson
\nEngineering Ltd., Mumbai v. Deendayal Ashok Kumar Goldani, Chennai and<\/a> another
\nreported in (2007) 1 MLJ 661, after analyzing the various case laws on this
\nsubject, has held that in the light of the provisions of the SICA Act, the
\nproceedings for recovery have to be suspended.  The operative portion of the
\norder of the First Bench of this Court, presided over by the Hon’ble Chief
\nJustice Mr.A.P.Shah, as he then was, in paragraph 8 is as follows:-
\n“8.\tIn the instant case, proceedings are pending before the BIFR in Case
\nNo.152 of 2004.  By order dated 17.05.2006, the Board has appointed Bank of
\nIndia, as Operating Agency (OA) with a direction to prepare a revival scheme for
\nit, if feasible.  The OA has been directed to keep in view the provisions of
\nSection 18 of the Act and the enclosed guidelines while carrying out this
\nexercise.  In the light of the steps taken by the Board under Sections 16 and 17
\nof the Act, no proceedings for execution, distress or the like proceedings
\nagainst any of the properties of the company shall lie or be proceeded further
\nexcept with the consent of the Board.  In the light of the above provisions,
\nthere would be deeming suspension of such proceedings against the company
\nproperties viz., Gram Panchayat v. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Limited<\/a> (supra) and
\nTata Davy Limited V. State of Orissa and Others<\/a> (supra).  The judgment of the
\nlearned single Judge relied upon the learned counsel for the respondent in Onida
\nSavak Limited v. Muthumeera Agencies<\/a> (supra), turns round on the peculiar facts
\nof the case.  In that case, washing machines were supplied by the defendant
\ncompany and they were found to be defective and they were once again returned to
\nthe defendant company.  In our opinion, the above judgment is not applicable to
\nthe facts of the present case.  In view of the steps taken by BIFR, the
\nproceedings for execution, distress or the like proceedings against any of the
\nproperties of the company are clearly not maintainable.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t10.By applying the legal principles laid down to the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case, the necessary  corollary to conclude is that the
\nrespondents cannot proceed with either distress action as it is seen in respect
\nof the Commercial Tax Department or for recovery of amount by the Public Works
\nDepartment unless consent is obtained from BIFR. It is always open to the
\nrespondents in these cases to take necessary steps to implead themselves before
\nBIFR and seek permission for the purpose of recovery of the amount from the
\nassets of the petitioner’s company, which has been declared as “sick company”,
\nin which event, it is for BIFR to decide on merit and based on the scheme that
\nmay be formulated as per the provisions of the SICA Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t11.In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed and the
\nimpugned orders are set aside. No costs.  Consequently, the connected
\nMiscellaneous Petitions are closed.\n<\/p>\n
tk\/mpk<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Commercial Tax Officer – II
\n  Office of the Commercial Tax Department
\n  Near Chellam Illam, Shanmughapuram,
\n  Palani – 624 601.\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n
\n\n2.The Executive Engineer\n  Public Works Department\n  Amaravathi, River Basin Division,\n  Karur.\t\t\t\t\t<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court M\/S.B.V.V.Paper Industries Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Officer – Ii on 18 July, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18\/07\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.(MD)No.1522 OF 2004 and W.P.(MD)No.1523 of 2004 and WPMP (MD)Nos.1509 and 1511 of 2004 M\/s.B.V.V.Paper Industries Ltd., Represented by its Manager L.Chandrasekar […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25586","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S.B.V.V.Paper Industries Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Officer - Ii on 18 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-b-v-v-paper-industries-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-ii-on-18-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.B.V.V.Paper Industries Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Officer - Ii on 18 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-b-v-v-paper-industries-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-ii-on-18-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-16T04:54:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-b-v-v-paper-industries-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-ii-on-18-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-b-v-v-paper-industries-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-ii-on-18-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.B.V.V.Paper Industries Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Officer – Ii on 18 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-16T04:54:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-b-v-v-paper-industries-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-ii-on-18-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2775,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-b-v-v-paper-industries-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-ii-on-18-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-b-v-v-paper-industries-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-ii-on-18-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-b-v-v-paper-industries-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-ii-on-18-july-2008\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.B.V.V.Paper Industries Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Officer - Ii on 18 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-16T04:54:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-b-v-v-paper-industries-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-ii-on-18-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-b-v-v-paper-industries-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-ii-on-18-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-b-v-v-paper-industries-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-ii-on-18-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.B.V.V.Paper Industries Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Officer – Ii on 18 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S.B.V.V.Paper Industries Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Officer - Ii on 18 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-b-v-v-paper-industries-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-ii-on-18-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.B.V.V.Paper Industries Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Officer - Ii on 18 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-b-v-v-paper-industries-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-ii-on-18-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-16T04:54:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-b-v-v-paper-industries-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-ii-on-18-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-b-v-v-paper-industries-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-ii-on-18-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.B.V.V.Paper Industries Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Officer – Ii on 18 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-16T04:54:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-b-v-v-paper-industries-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-ii-on-18-july-2008"},"wordCount":2775,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-b-v-v-paper-industries-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-ii-on-18-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-b-v-v-paper-industries-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-ii-on-18-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-b-v-v-paper-industries-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-ii-on-18-july-2008","name":"M\/S.B.V.V.Paper Industries Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Officer - Ii on 18 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-16T04:54:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-b-v-v-paper-industries-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-ii-on-18-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-b-v-v-paper-industries-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-ii-on-18-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-b-v-v-paper-industries-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-ii-on-18-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.B.V.V.Paper Industries Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Officer – Ii on 18 July, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25586","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25586"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25586\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25586"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25586"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25586"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}