Vysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. V. The Assistant Commissioner(Assessment), Commercial Taxes, Special Circle-I, Ernakulam

WP(C)/37173/2009

AI Insights

The case revolves around M/s. Vysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd., which challenged the recall of the 'Amnesty Scheme' benefit and subsequent recovery proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act. Initially, the petitioner was granted the benefit to settle liabilities under the Amnesty Scheme, which was later revoked. The petitioner, registered with the BIFR, argued that under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, no coercive actions should be taken until BIFR proceedings were concluded. The respondent contended that the petitioner was estopped from seeking relief again as they had previously availed the scheme but failed to meet its conditions. The court, referencing a Supreme Court decision, held that the protection under Section 22 is immediate upon BIFR registration, thus ruling in favor of the petitioner.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 690004 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Real Value Appliances Ltd. V. Canara Bank and Others (1998(5) SCC 554)
• Laws Referred To: Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SHAIJ RAJ; JOSE JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: N M MADHU; C KAIMAL
• Keywords: Amnesty Scheme; BIFR; Coercive Steps; Revenue Recovery Act
• Section: 22; 15(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/17TH PHALGUNA 1933 WP(C).No. 37173 of 2009 (N) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- M/S.VYSALI PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT CIVIL ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-24 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, DR.A.D.KRISHNAN. BY ADVS.SRI.N.M.MADHU SMT.C.DEVIKA RANI KAIMAL RESPONDENT: ----------- THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(ASSESSMENT), COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE-I, ERNAKULAM KOCHI-15. BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. SHAIJ RAJ BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DST WP(C).No. 37173 of 2009 (N) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT. P1 : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02.06.2007 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, KSIDC TO THE PETITIONER. EXT. P2 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 4.7.2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT. P3 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C) 13017 DATED 30.7.2009. EXT.P4 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.10.09. EXT.P5 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.11.09. EXT.P6 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO. 27/2009 DATED 19.08.09 AND COVERING LETTER. EXT.P7 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 11.12.2009 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE RETURNS FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2009. EXT.P9 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE RETURNS FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2009. EXT.P10 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE RETURNS FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2009. EXT.P11 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.2.10 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE DST P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C). 37173 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of March, 2012 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P7 order, whereby the earlier order passed by the concerned authority granting the benefit of 'Amnesty Scheme' was recalled. The petitioner also challenges the recovery proceedings resorting to the Revenue Recovery Act. 2. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.13017/2009, which was disposed of as per Ext.P3 judgment dated 30.07.2009, enabling the petitioner to settle the liability availing the benefit under the Amnesty Scheme. It is stated that the said benefit, though was granted initially, it was later withdraw/cancelled as per Ext.P7. The petitioner contends that, in the mean while, the petitioner came to be registered with the BIFR under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act. This being the position, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit under Section 22 of the Sick Industrial W.P.C. No. 37173 of 2009 -2- Companies(Special Provisions)Act and no further coercive steps are liable to be pursued against the petitioner, till the proceedings are finalized before the BIFR. 3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that the idea and understanding of the petitioner is quite wrong and misconceived. It is stated that since the petitioner has already approached this Court seeking to avail the benefit of 'Amnesty Scheme' which was granted and since the petitioner had not satisfied the condition in terms of the Scheme, the petitioner is estopped from approaching this Court again, challenging the coercive steps. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is stated that the petitioner has been only given registration under Section 15 and no evidence has been produced to show that Section 16/17 proceedings under the 'Act' are in progress; in the absence of which, protection under Section 22 is not available. With reference to the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue stands squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Real Value Appliances Ltd. V. Canara Bank and Others (1998(5) SCC 554), wherein it has been W.P.C. No. 37173 of 2009 -3- categorically held that the protection under Section 22 is available immediately from the moment of registration before the BIFR. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the proceedings are still pending and that it has been assigned the number as AAIFR No.193/2011. 4. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the law having been declared by the Apex Court, the petitioner is entitled to have the protection under Section 22 of the Act. The writ petition is disposed of, making it clear that the respondent can proceed against the petitioner only in respect to the scheme amount, pursuant to the final orders to be passed by the BIFR under the relevant provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act. It is also open to proceed further, if the scheme does not work out, subject to the orders passed by the BIFR and in accordance with law. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. Kp/- "