TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fell for consideration before the Apex Court was whether the board had a right to be heard. Thus in our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the application for intervention is not maintainable and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is confirmed. Both these appeals are dismissed. - Co. Appeal Nos. 3 & 4 of 2013. - - - Dated:- 14-2-2013 - V.M. KANADE AND U.V. Bakre, JJ. For the Appellant Mrs. Asha A. Desai. For the Respondent A.N.S. Nadkarni, Riyaz Chagla, D. Lawande and P. Wagle. ORDER:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/applicant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 6/11/2012 passed by the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... katerina" company was a Mauritius based company. It was further submitted that if the merger and amalgamation would have taken place prior to 31/3/2013, then in that event the revenue would have adjusted the advance amount of Rs.600 crores paid by Sea Goa. It is further submitted that as a result of the said scheme, the revenue will have to make refund of Rs. 900 crores. It was submitted that no permission was taken of the Finance Ministry before getting the scheme sanctioned and the Registrar who had represented the Central Government, had stated that there was no tax liability, since there was a communication gap between the IT authority and the Registrar. It was then submitted that the demand notices had been issued under section 166 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of "Garware Plastics Polyesters Ltd." (supra), was not applicable. He submitted that the Government of India had issued a notification dated 17/3/2012, in which the Central Government had delegated its powers to the Regional Directors at Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Nodia, Ahemdabad in respect of powers and functions of the Central Government u/s 394- A of the Companies Act, 1956. 5. After having heard both the learned counsel at length and arguments, it is not possible to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue. It is an admitted position that under the provisions of Section 391 the Central Government and the IT Authority do not have any powers to intervene or to be heard on any scheme which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e High Court and reiterated before this Court that the merger scheme would be effective from 1st April, 1994. Consequently, the benefits of set-off under ss. 70, 71 and 72 have been marginalized and, therefore, no considerable revenue loss would occur to the public exchequer. Any minor benefits would be consequential to the offer of merger with the healthy company. In these appeals and before the High Court , they are impleaded as respondents and were heard through Sri Ahuja, learned senior counsel, who has stated that there would be no loss of revenue to the State and benefit under s. 43B of the IT Act is bound to be given to a company revived on either basis. In that view, the orders passed by the Board and approved by the Appellate Autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
