G.S.SINGHVI, J. - (1.) IN this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of demand notices Annexures P/8 dated 2.8.2000, P/9 dated 25.8.2000, P/12 dated 5.10.2000 and P/14 dated 2.11.2000 issued by the Assessing Authority-cum- Excise and Taxation Officer, Ward No. 9, Rajpura (respondent No. 4) requiring it to pay the dues of sales tax under the Punjab General Sales Act, 1948 (for short, "the 1948 Act"). It has also prayed for directing the respondents not to take any coercive measures for recovery of dues of tax during the pendency of these enquiry under Section 16 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short, "the 1985 Act") in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Tata Davy Ltd. etc. v. State of Orissa and others, JT 1997(7) SC 216.
(2.) THERE is no dispute between the parties that the reference made by the Board of Directors of the petitioner under Section 15(1) of the 1985 Act was received by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short the BIFR) on 12.7.1999. The same stands registered as case No. 240 of 1999 and after taking cognizance of the same, the BIFR has passed two interim orders on 28.10.1999 (Annexure P-16) and 14.9.2000 (Annexure P-17). According to the petitioner, in view of the statutory bar contained in Section 22 of the 1985 Act, respondents 1 to 4 cannot recover the amount of sales tax due against it under the 1948 Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short 'the 1956 Act') and no coercive measure can be taken for effecting the recovery in pursuance of the impugned notices.
(3.) RESPONDENTS 1 to 4 have controverted the plea of the petitioner by contending that the failure of BIFR to complete the enquiry within 80 days stipulated in Section 16(3) of the 1985 Act has the effect of rendering the reference infructuous and, therefore, they can effect recovery of dues under the 1948 Act and the 1956 Act.;