Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2008 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (11) TMI 622 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether the impugned Scheme is arbitrary for altogether ignoring objections put forward by the petitioner-State and is hit by section 19(3) of the SICA? Whether dismissal of appeal of the petitioner by the AAIFR calls for interference? Held that:- The operation of non obstante clause will be limited to making provision of the SICA operative in case of conflict. The Act itself contemplates an order stipulating financial assistance to be passed with consent or to prepare a scheme adopting measures as are specified in section 18 or other measures contemplated under section 19(1) which may include winding up. Thus, there is no conflict in the sales tax statute and the SICA and such a construction which results in harmonious construction of the two provisions, has to be accepted. The State filed an appeal which was barred by limitation but the State was taking other steps and proceedings before the BIFR for implementation of the Scheme continued. The observations of the AAIFR that in no situation, there could be condonation of delay beyond 60 days under section 25 of the SICA, is not a correct interpretation of law. The said provision cannot be read as mandatory, as has been held in several decisions (see Kailash v. Nanhku - 2005 (4) TMI 542 - SUPREME COURT). In any case, even if the said view is correct, this court is not debarred from setting aside order of the BIFR. We also take note of the conduct of respondent No. 3 of having not paid the amount of ₹ 796.11 lacs as per direction of the AAIFR in order dated February 12, 2008 reproduced in para 6 above and the statement made on behalf of the State that the unit has not been revived. Thus the impugned order passed by the BIFR is not sustainable. W.P allowed.
|