HIGH COUKTtW CaHHAT'nSfiARB AT BILASPUR 88 ^HOM'Bia M JCT8T^C®NQTOI!K8RraWAKBR W.P. (2271 N0. 6C3S/2008 PBTrnOBBStS 2. Versus RBSPONDENT8 Non-applicant 3. M/s. Visliwaiakshau Pctro Products Ltd. a Coiapany Incorporated uadei- fhe Coinpajiies Act, being 100% subsidiaiy of M/s. Goa Carbon Ud., a ; Company incorporated undcr fhe Cojnpanies Act, ttuough Rubcn Piabhakar Doss, Aged 49 years, S/o. Charles Doss, Depuly General Maaager, 34- 40, Scctor-B, Sirigitd Industrial Area, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) M/s. Goa Carbon Ltmited, a Company Incorporated imder Coiapanies Act, througfa its General Managcr, 34-40, Sector-B, Sirgitti ladustrial Aiea, Bilaspur, District Bil^pur (Chhattisgarh)' Stetc of Chhattisgarh fhiough Ifae Secretaiy, Departaient of Einaace aad Gomaiereial Tax, Mantralaya Dau Kafyan Smgfa Bhflnvan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) CoUcctor Collectorate, (Chhattisgarh) Board of Cbliattisgarh, (CIihattisgarh) (Staaips), Bitaspur Revcuue, Bilaspur ) llt lli wRmI im<Mt OTroBR.Aicia£a»Baa7<»'THE coNsnTimoBroFiNi»t& _is? ABDearanc®: SIui Maitiadra Shrisastava, Sr. Advocate with Shri Vivek Raiyaii Tiroari, couusel forthe petitigaers. Shri A.S.Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate Qcneral for fhe State/respondents. ORALORDER (27.04.2009) Wifh the consent offhe paclaes, the matter is heard finaUy. GhaUenge ia fhe pTesen.t wnt petitioit js to the order dated 3Q.09.2(»8 (Aniiexurc P/1) passed by fhc Boaid of Revenzie, Chhattisgadi, Bcnch. at Bilaspur in Case No. 126/B-1G13/20Q3-04. By fhis order, the Boaid of ReKenue has rejeeted the appUeati.Qn.as fitedby fh.e petitioners seeldag amendmen.t in the menio ofrevisioii. Contention of learDcd Gounsel for tfac petitioneis is fhat by way of axaendaient appUcation (Annexure P/l) fhe pettttonera waat to elaborate ttieir pleadings and waat to raise fhe legal issue giving ccrtaia detafls oftlic facts alao.. According to him, even if the ainendaieat is aBowed, no harm or prejudice is goiug to be caused to thc State aufh.orities aud rather it would be conveiuent for fhe Board of Revenue to arrive to a correct conclusiDh. Supporting fhe order iinpugaed, Shri KaehhaavaMa submits fhat the order iiupugaed is passcd stricffy in accordance wifh law. I have heard coiinsel for the respeGtive pardes aud perused fhe records. VMe Annexure P/11, ttie petitioaers want to make fhe foUowing aiaendment; f^ 2. Ground (J): That M/s. VishwaIafcstuniPetro Product Liaiited, Siiytti, BUaspur is a sister concera of Ctoa Carbon i.e. appHcant No.2 in fhe -w' >-.•<? instant revisk>n niemo. The appUcant No.l Coiupauy is a 100% subsjdiary coinpany of appUcant No.2 Goa. Carbon and no starup duly wffl be teviable in aav case to the teaasfer &f such assets betwecn the transferer and traasferee companies as aaia^amation when fhe transferar coiapany is a 100% sutosidiary of the traasferee coinpany whlch was thc parent coinpaay. A base reaimg Qf above proposed ameiidnient wfll reveat ffae fact fhat basicaBy, it is a legal poia.t which fhe petitioners waat to raise giving certain factual details also. The rcvision petitton wfaich bas beeu filed by fhe pctitioners assailmg fhe order passed by the CoUector (Stamps), is to be heard finaUy. In. the uiterest ofjusticeaxulm. view ofthe fact tliat the Court shouM be liberal while allcwiag the amendaieBt application, fhis Coiut is offha considered opiuion that tfae amendment as sought can bc aUowed especialty in view of the fact fhat ftie same is not goiag to cause any prejudice to thc ofher party, The Boaad. of Revcnue is directed to penuit the pettyoner to iucorporate fhe proposed amendment ai the aaeaio ofrevision and the respondents will Iiavc flie right to inake consequential auiendaient, ifany. Wifh fhe above Qbscrvation, fhe petition is aUowed. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge .^i 11: