AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.—Considering the fact that the issue raised in the writ petition has been considered in the earlier decisions of this Court, the
main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.
Aggrieved by the recovery proceedings issued by the second respondent to the third respondent dated 28.3.2003, the petitioner has filed the
above writ petition to quash the same as unsustainable and prayed for a direction to the second respondent not to proceed without the consent of
the Board of B.I.F.R. and no recovery proceedings by coercive methods can be initiated against the petitioner.
Heard both sides.
The question relates to recovery of sales tax from the petitioner. The main contention of the petitioner is that in view of the pendency of
proceedings before the B.I.F.R. in Case No. 113 of 1997, the realisation of the amount should be stayed.
It is relevant to note that in Tata Davy Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and Others, , the Honourable Supreme Court has observed that the arrears of
sales tax cannot be recovered without obtaining the consent of the Board. Similar view has been expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in
Writ Appeal No. 1831 of 2001 (M/s .ESSORPE MILLS LTD. v. THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI
AND OTHERS), by judgment dated 2.11.2001.
Following the above-said decisions, P.K. Misra, J., in W.P. No. 30163 of 2002, by order dated 20.8.2002, disposed of the said writ petition
observing that without obtaining the consent of the Board (B.I.F.R.), the sales tax dues cannot be recovered from the petitioner.
There is no dispute that all the above decisions are applicable to the case on hand. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the
observation that without obtaining the consent of the Board (B.I.F.R.), sales tax cannot be recovered from the petitioner. No costs. Consequently,
W.P.M.P. No. 13020 of 2003 is closed.