IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 17440 of 2004(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SWICH GEAR DIVISION, MANNAR. BY ADV. MR. E.K.NANDAKUMAR MR. A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR MS.PRIYA MAHESH MS.PRIYA MANJOORAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KOLLAM. 3. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX (ADM.) M-18, WORLI DIVISION, MUMBAI. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P. RAVEENDRA BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).17440/04 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 10.11.2003, CASE NO.93/87 OF THE BIFR. EXT.P2:-TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT.18.11.03 WITH ITS ANNEXURE, CASE NO.93/87 EXT.P3:-TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY DEMAND NOTICE U/S 7 DT.NIL EXT.P4:-TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY DEMAND NOTICE U/S 34 DT.NIL EXT.P5:-TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DT. NIL NO.AC/ADM/M-18/MIG.28595/RRC/B RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL okb //True Copy// P.A. to Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.17440 OF 2004 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. The writ petition is filed by a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The challenge in the writ petition is against Exts.P3 to P5 notices issued pursuant to revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the Company for realisation of arrears of sales tax due to the 3rd respondent. The contention of the petitioner is that the Company had already been declared as a 'Sick Industry' as per provisions in the Sick Industrial Companies (Special provisions) Act, 1985 and a reference has already been made to the BIFR. It is submitted that now the operating agency had already filed a rehabilitation scheme before the BIFR and the same is pending consideration before that authority. According to the petitioner, since the matter is under consideration of the BIFR, any steps for recovery now initiated is unsustainable, in view of the provisions contained in S.22 of the said Act. 2. Inspite of service of notice on 3rd respondent assessing authority, nobody has entered appearance nor any counter W.P.(C).17440/04 2 affidavit is filed. I find force in the contention based on the bar under S.22 of the Act. Hence the writ petition is allowed quashing the Revenue Recovery steps initiated pursuant to Exts.P3 to P5 notices. However, it is made clear that this will not preclude the 3rd respondent or any other authority concerned in taking appropriate steps for recovery of amounts due by approaching the appropriate authorities under the provisions of the above said Act or under the provisions of the Companies Act. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb