IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2008 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 35024 of 2007(T) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S.AMASCO TOURS AND TRAVELS PVT.LTD THOMSOM BUILDING, M.G.ROAD,ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.K.V.ABRAHAM. BY ADV. SMT.SILVI JOSEPH. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. BOARD FOR INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION, NEW DELHI, JAWAHAR VYAPAR BHAWAN, I, TOLSTOY MARG, NEW DELHI. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE ERNAKULAM II RANGE, CENTAL EXCISE BHAVAN, KATHRIKADAVU, KOCHI-17 3. SALES TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-2 KALAMASSERY 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAPALLY NORTH VILLAGE KANAYANNUR TALUK, 682 024. 5. TAHSILDAR, KANAYANUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM- 682 016. 6. SPECIAL TAHASIDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KANAYANNUR TALUK. ERNAKULAM- 682 016. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. SANTHOSH, ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.S.G. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.35024/2007-T: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE FINALISED UPDATED SANCTIONED SCHEME FOR REHABILITATION OF METAL BOX INDIA LTD. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO. 7420/2006 OF SRO, EDAPPALLY AND DTD. 02/11/2005. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED ON 10/01/2006 REGARDING ASSET SALES COMMITTEE RESOLUTION. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 01/02/2007 GIVEN BY PETITIONER TO R.6. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 10/08/2007 FROM THE R.6 TO R.5. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 22/10/2007 FROM THE R.3. TO THE R.6. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 20/09/2007 FROM THE R.2. TO THE R.6. EXT.P.8: COMMUNICATION DTD. 03/11/2007 ISSUED BY R.6 TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 35024 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated: MARCH 17, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that in pursuance to the orders of the 1st respondent, M/s. Metal Box (I) Ltd. invited offers for the disposal of certain assets of the company and in the sale held in pursuance thereof, petitioner was the successful purchaser. 2. It is stated that Ext.P2 is the document of title that was executed by the company and following Ext.P2, petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application for effecting mutation in its name. It is stated in Ext.P8 that the request made by Ext.P4 was rejected by the 5th respondent. The reasons stated for rejection are that amount is due from the transferor company towards tax under the KGST Act and also towards duty under the Central Excise Act. Ext.P6 is the communication issued by the Commercial Tax Officer indicating the liability of the company to the tune of Rs.41351/-. Similarly, from Ext.P7 issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, it is seen that the company has a liability of Rs.11,22,619/-. WP(C) 35024/07 Page numbers 3. According to the petitioner the operating agency appointed by the BIFR has prepared a scheme for the rehabilitation of the company and that is Ext.P1 in this writ petition, which has been approved by the BIFR by Ext.P3 order. Petitioner submits that Ext.P1 scheme as approved by Ext.P3 makes provision for discharging the sales tax and central excise liabilities and therefore there is no justification in declining his request for effecting mutation. 4. A reading of clause F of Ext.P1 shows that the BIFR has made provision for payment of sales tax dues to the Government of Kerala in instalments. Similarly clause H(c) also provides for discharging the liability towards the central excise duty as well, in instalments. Thus it is evident from Ext.P1 itself that the BIFR has made sufficient provision for discharging the aforesaid liabilities. If that be so, the refusal to effect mutation for the reasons stated in Ext.P8 cannot be sustained. 5. The petitioner having paid the full consideration and as the said amount is available at the disposal of the BIFR or the operating agency appointed by the BIFR, there is absolutely no justification in declining to effect mutation applied for by the WP(C) 35024/07 Page numbers petitioner by submitting Ext.P4 application. 6. For these reasons I cannot sustain Ext.P8 order rejecting Ext.P4 and therefore Ext.P8 will stand set aside. Respondents 4 and 5 shall re-consider Ext.P4 application submitted by the petitioner for effecting mutation and pass orders in the light of the observations in this judgment. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-