Madras High Court
WP/10286/2003 of M/S SUMANGALA STEEL LTD. Vs THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING on 24 September 2003
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24/09/2003 CORAM THE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24/09/2003
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.SATHASIVAM
W.P.No.10286 of 2003M/s.Sumangala Steel Ltd.rep. by its DirectorateSri.SabanayagamNo.45, Chamiers RoadChennai-600 028. .. Petitioner -Vs-
1. The Chairman and Managing DirectorSIPCOTNo.19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathi RoadEgmore, Chennai-8.
2. The Commercial Tax OfficerMandaveli Assessment Circle.
3. The Branch ManagerIndus Ind. BankNungambakkam BranchChennai-34. .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiapraying for the issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.
For petitioner : Mr.K.Jayachandran
For respondent-1 : Mr.P.S.Seetharaman
For respondent-2 : Mrs.G.KavithaGovernment Advocate
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
:ORDER
Considering the fact that the issue raised in the writ petition hasbeen considered in the earlier decisions of this Court, the main writ petitionitself is taken up for disposal.
2. Aggrieved by the recovery proceedings issued by the secondrespondent to the third respondent dated 28.3.2003, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the same as unsustainable and prayed for adirection to the second respondent not to proceed without the consent of theBoard of B.I.F.R. and no recovery proceedings by coercive methods can beinitiated against the petitioner.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The question relates to recovery of sales tax from the petitioner.The main contention of the petitioner is that in view of the pendency ofproceedings before the B.I.F.R. in Case No.113 of 1997, the realisation ofthe amount should be stayed.
4. It is relevant to note that in 1997 (94) E.L.T. 477 (S.C.) TATADAVY LTD. V. STATE OF ORISSA, the Honourable Supreme Court has observed thatthe arrears of sales tax cannot be recovered without obtaining the consent ofthe Board. Similar view has been expressed by a Division Bench of this Courtin Writ Appeal No.1831 of 2001 (M/s.ESSORPE MILLS LTD. V. THE CENTRALPROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS), by judgment dated2.11.2001.
5. Following the above-said decisions, P.K.Misra,J., in W.P.No.30163of 2002, by order dated 20.8.2002, disposed of the said writ petitionobserving that without obtaining the consent of the Board (B.I.F.R.), thesales tax dues cannot be recovered from the petitioner.
6. There is no dispute that all the above decisions are applicable tothe case on hand. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with theobservation that without obtaining the consent of the Board ( B.I.F.R.), salestax cannot be recovered from the petitioner. No costs. Consequently,W.P.M.P.No.13020 of 2003 is closed.
Index: YesInternet: Yes
ksv
To:1. The Chairman and Managing DirectorSIPCOTNo.19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathi RoadEgmore, Chennai-8.
2. The Commercial Tax OfficerMandaveli Assessment Circle.