Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing annexure P7 and further for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 3 to defer recovery proceedings for recovery of old arrears and to grant such other relief as is deemed to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(2.) THE petitioner is a State Government Enterprise, wholly owned subsidiary of the Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation. The petitioner -company was incorporated in October 1980 and is engaged in the business of developing, manufacturing and supplying mini micro computer systems for different applications. The company commenced its commercial production in the year 1983. Till the year 1990, the company was earning huge profits: However, with the entry of foreign MNCs, there was an adverse impact on the financial health of the petitioner -company which resulted in the petitioner's company suffering huge losses and in the financial year June 30, 1997, the petitioner's company net worth had fully eroded with its accumulated losses amounting to Rs. 23.76 crores. The petitioner -company filed a reference under Section 15(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and the said reference was registered as BIFR case No. 605 of 1998. The Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction on May 31, 1999 after taking into consideration the submissions of the concerned authorities declared the petitioner's company as a sick industrial company in terms of Section 3(1)(o) of the SICA Act and appointed SBI as the operating agency in terms of Section 17(3) of the SICA Act to formulate the rehabilitation scheme. However, vide its order dated May 24, 2004 the BIFR held that the petitioner -company is not likely to make its net worth exceed its accumlated losses within a reasonable time while meeting all its financial obligations and that the company as a result thereof is not likely to become viable in future, and hence, that it is just equitable and in public interest that it should be wound up under Section 20(1) of the Act.
(3.) IT is relevant to mention at this stage that in the mean time the petitioner -company had incurred huge liabilities towards the authorities under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the said tax was not paid by the petitioner -company to the department. After the order of the BIFR vide which the petitioner -company was ordered to be wound up, the Excise and Taxation Officer, Mohali (respondent No. 3) vide his letter dated June 9, 2004 directed the petitioner -company to deposit the arrears of its tax liability in his office up to June 25, 2004.;