IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 OP.No. 30346 of 2002(K) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE, UDARASIROMANI ROAD, TRIVANDRUM-695 014, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MR.K.S.NAYAR. BY ADV. . SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SMT.PRIYA MAHESH SMT.PRIYA MANJOORAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), KOLLAM. 4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, SPECIAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.K.P.PRADEEP FOR R1 TO R4 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 1.4.2009, THE COURT ON 01/04/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.No. 30346/02. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE BIFR DTD.8.11.01. P2. COPY OF THE -DO- 27.6.02. P3. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.8.8.02. P4. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.10.8.02. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 30346 of 2002 ================== Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act. Sales tax arrears are due from them for the year 1991-92. Recovery proceedings were initiated as per Exts.P3 and P4. The petitioner company is challenging Exts.P3 and P4 in this original petition. 2. Their main contention is that the petitioner is a sick company, in respect of which proceedings are pending before the BIFR. Originally the BIFR directed winding up of the company, which was taken in appeal and as per orders of the Appellate Authority, presently a scheme has been formulated for revival of the company, on 31.1.2009. The petitioner, therefore, submits that in view of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (“the Act”), no recovery can be made for sales tax arrears from the petitioner. 3. The learned Government Pleader submits that simply because a scheme has been framed, Section 22 of the Act does not come into play automatically. According to him, only if there is a specific provision in the scheme regarding postponing of collection of sales tax arrears, Section 22 would be attracted. The learned Government Pleader relies on a decision of this Court in Aluminium 2 Industries Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2005 (1) kLT 889], which is a decision rendered in a case filed by the petitioner company itself. 4. I have heard both sides. 5. The liability to pay tax is not disputed. Only the proceedings for recovery of the sales tax are under challenge on the basis of Section 22 of the Act. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, Section 22 would be attracted only to such dues in respect of which a specific provision has been made in the scheme. In the above circumstances, this original petition is disposed of with the following directions: The petitioner shall, within one month from today, file a petition before the District Collector along with a copy of the scheme stated to have been framed for revival of the company. The District Collector shall consider the applicability of Section 22 in terms of the decision in Aluminium Industries' case (supra) on the basis of the scheme so produced. Orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of the petition along with a copy of the scheme. Till orders are thus passed by the District Collector, recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 30346 of 2002-K ================== J U D G M E N T 1st April, 2009