- (1.) THIS is an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 praying for an order quashing the Certificate Proceeding No. 32 ST (PS)/2000 -2001 initiated by the respondent No. 1 for realisation of dues for four quarters ending on 31st March, 1988 under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.
(2.) THE case in brief, is that the petitioner is a company within the meaning of the Companies Act and is a manufacturer of steel ingots in the factory at Kalyani. The petitioner was a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and also under the Central Sales Tax Act. Since there was a continuous labour trouble in the company it could not run smoothly as such resulting heavy loss in the production. Ultimately, the Board of Directors of the petitioner made reference to the BIFR pointing out the relevant facts reflected in the final accounts of the company and on considering the financial position and other aspects, the BIFR declared the company a sick industrial company on February 8, 1990 within the meaning of Sick Industrial Companies Act. A rehabilitation scheme was proposed and the IRBI decided to advance term loan subject to the scheme being sanctioned for implementation by AIFR but ultimately due to financial stringency of the petitioner the rehabilitation scheme was abandoned. In view of a proceeding dated March 9, 1993 the BIFR found it just and equitable to pass an order of winding up of the company and directed for its consideration by the High Court in terms of Section 20 of the said Act. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the appellate authority and the appeal was dismissed on July 21, 1993. A writ petition was filed against the order of the appellate authority bearing W.P. No. 3100 of 1993 in the honourable High Court at Calcutta and the honourable Court directed the operating agency to submit viability report of the revised scheme and the operative portion of the order passed by the BIFR was stayed. A report in compliance of the honourable Court was filed to the appellate authority on April 27, 1994 by the operating agency. Subsequently, on the basis of the said report the honourable Court gave various directions on August 18, 1994. The appellate authority directed the operating agency on January 6, 1995. The petitioner again moved the honourable Court against the order of fixing the appeal on April 10, 1995. The appellate authority thereafter took up the hearing and dismissed the appeal on January 29, 1996. The appellate authority now has made a proposal for winding up the company due to non -consideration of rehabilitation scheme though writ petition is still pending before the honourable Court. In the meantime, a case No. BIFR 279 of 1998 was initiated by the honourable High Court, but it was made out of list due to pendency of the writ petition filed before the High Court against the order of BIFR. In the meantime, assessment of four quarters ending on March 31, 1988 was completed by the assessing authority and huge demand was raised by the respondent No. 1, the assessing authority, Appeal was preferred against this order and it was modified in appeal. The petitioner thereafter was directed to make payment by a letter dated September 13, 2000 issued by the respondent No. 2 and there was a threat that penal action would be taken if no payment is made. The said letter was not given effect being challenged before the Tribunal since it was not in form prescribed under a statute. Thereafter a demand notice was sent to the petitioner for realisation of the assessed dues under the Act, 1941. The petitioner being declared a sick industry by the BIFR and the rehabilitation scheme since was also under consideration by the honourable High Court prayer was made before the respondent No. 1 to drop the certificate proceeding but the respondent No. 1 refused to drop the proceeding and is bent upon taking steps for recovery of the dues under coercive measure. The certificate for realisation of the dues bearing No. 32 ST (PS)/2000 -2001 illegal and bad in law should be quashed.
(3.) ON behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that since the matter is pending before the honourable Court for consideration the proceeding for realisation of sales tax should remain suspended under the provisions of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. On behalf of the respondents it is submitted that the proceeding if is pending for consideration by the BIFR or any enquiry under Section 16 or scheme under Section 17 of the Act is pending for consideration the provision of Section 22 only then can be attracted. Since in this case no proceeding was pending before the BIFR or any matter referred to under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the matter since under consideration by the honourable Court and has not yet been disposed of finally the proceeding for realisation of sales tax should be stayed since the decision of the honourable Court if goes in favour of the petitioner or for taking further step by the BIFR for reconsideration of the scheme or appeal, the realisation of tax will be against the existing position of law and will act adversely to the principles of natural justice.;