THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos. 7376, 7404, 7405 and 7377 of 2009 Dated: 3-11-2009 Between: M/s Sudershan Drugs & Intermediates Ltd. L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, rep. by its General Manager-Finance Sri K.Bhanu Murthy. …Petitioner and Commercial Tax Officer, Saroornagar Circle, Hyderabad and others …Respondents. Common order: (Per RR, J) In all these four writ petitions, the total tax liability is said to be in excess of Rupees one crore. The petitioner, a manufacturer of drugs and medicines, was an assessee on the rolls of the 1st respondent. The petitioner was assessed to tax pursuant to the assessment orders passed by the 1st respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred appeals to the 2nd respondent who set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter back for de novo determination. After the 1st respondent reiterated the order passed by him earlier, the petitioner preferred appeals to the 2nd respondent and, on the said appeals being dismissed, had preferred second appeals before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which is said to be still pending. The petitioner’s application for stay of collection of the disputed tax was, however, dismissed by the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petitions. The petitioner’s case, in short, is that, on its becoming sick, it had filed an application to the BIFR and, pursuant thereto, the matter had been referred to the operating agency for inquiry. Reliance is placed on Section 22 (1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special provisions) Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’) to contend that since an inquiry is pending under Section 16 of the Act, no coercive steps can be taken for recovery of the tax due. Sri S.R.Ashok, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, would contend that the disputed tax, in its entirety, relates to transactions for which declaration forms had not been filed and that the petitioner has since obtained the declaration form, and if the appeals pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal are heard early, the petitioner’s liability would be substantially reduced. He would also submit that the 1st respondent-Commercial Tax Officer had himself agreed before the BIFR that the BIFR should direct the 1st respondent to liquidate its entire tax liability commencing from the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01. Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya, learned standing counsel for the respondents, submits that, since the petitioner had not included these dues in their application filed before the BIFR, no inquiry could be said to be pending in this regard under Section 16 of the Act, and, therefore, the petitioner was liable to pay the tax due. Learned counsel would submit that the statement of the Commercial Tax Officer, as recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the BIFR, cannot be construed as a concession made by him, as he had merely informed the BIFR that in case instalments were to be granted, it should relate to the entire tax due and not merely to a portion thereof. It is evident from the material on record that, while the assessment years relates to a period prior to the filing of the application by the petitioner before the BIFR, the tax liability, arising therefrom, was not included therein, as the assessment orders were passed subsequent to the filing of the application before the BIFR. The fact, however, remains that, the petitioner could have filed an application subsequent thereto and could have sought inclusion of these dues also in the list of dues payable by it. Since the appeals are pending before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, and as Sri S.R.Ashok, learned Senior counsel would state that the petitioners would make a request to the Tribunal for an early hearing of the appeals, we consider it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions directing the respondents not to take any coercive steps for a period of two months from today, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the remedies either before the BIFR or the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, as advised. Subject to any orders which may be passed by either the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, or the BIFR, it would be open to the respondents to take such steps as are available to them in law for recovery of the tax due, on expiry of the two months period aforementioned. The writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly. However, in the circumstances, without costs. __________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _________________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 3rd November, 2009. GRR