IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8254 of 2010(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SDF INDUSTRIES LTD., SDF HOUSE, 7/352, NH BYPASS ROAD, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR EXECUTIVE (LAISON), SUNNY MATHEW, S/O.P.M.MATHEW BY ADV. SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.PRABHA R.MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), SPECIAL CIRCLE, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 2. THE INSPECTING ASST. COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, PALAKKAD. 3. THE KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING CORPORATION LTD.) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 5. THE BOARD FOR INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION (BIFR), JAWAHAR VYAPAR BHAWAN, 1 TOLSTOY MARG, NEW DELHI - 100 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVT. PLEADE SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R5 SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J, SC FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 8254 of 2010-F ---------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the following reliefs: “i) Declare that, in view of Sec.22 of the SIC Act, 1985 and Ext.P6 order which is still in force, coercive steps taken against the petitioner vide Ext.P9 to Ext.P12 by the 1st respondent are illegal and unenforceable. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing respondent 1, 2 & 4 to refrain from proceeding with coercive steps evidenced by Ext.P9 to Ext.P12 till the 5th respondent finalises the Scheme for rehabilitation of the petitioner Company under Section 17 of the SIC Act. iii) Pass appropriate orders directing the 3rd respondent to refrain from handing over any amounts to the respondents 1, 2 & 4 which is legally due to the petitioner. and iv) to issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings for revival of the petitioner industry is pending consideration before the fifth respondent. After considering the scope of the Scheme, Ext.P6 order was passed by the fifth respondent with the following directions: W.P(C) No. 8254 of 2010-F 2 “i) The scheme circulated by BIFR vide order dated 1.10.2009 is treated as withdrawn. The Board's office may examine the revised DRS submitted by SBT(OA) vide their letter dated 5.12.2009, after the company submits its audited balance sheet as on 31.12.2009 and OA makes further changes, if any, required in the revised DRS submitted. ii) The cut-of date (COD) in the DRS is to be taken as 31.12.2009. iii) The next hearing will be held on 23.3.2010 and it may be cancelled, if the Board is able to circulate a fully tied-up DRS, before that date.” 3. Subsequently, M.A 46 was filed by the Department before the fifth respondent seeking to vary Ext.P2 in the manner as desired therein. After considering the contents of the said application, the fifth respondent passed Ext.P7 order, whereby the order dated 19.5.2008 ie. Ext.P2 was modified, permitting the assessing authority to exercise all powers conferred under the relevant State Act to enforce payment of current turnover tax due from the company after 19.5.2008. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that there was no request for the respondents to have varied Ext.P6 in any manner and that the M.A was filed only to vary Ext.P2. It is pointed out that Ext.P6 still stands, wherein specific direction has been given to the parties concerned enabling the petitioner to submit audited balance sheet 'as on 31.12.2009' and the cut-off date in the DRS to be W.P(C) No. 8254 of 2010-F 3 reckoned as on '31.12.2009'. The learned counsel further submits that the grievance has been taken up by the petitioner, by way of Ext.P8 before the fifth respondent, and that the same is still pending. However, taking note of the relative claims put forth, this Court finds it fit and proper to have the matter to be finalised by the fifth respondent in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and as such no separate notice needs to be issued to the fifth respondent as to the merits involved. 5. In the above circumstances, the fifth respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 application in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondents and this shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, the recovery will stand confined to the subsequent period after 31.12.2009 and the remaining liability shall be satisfied, subject to the further orders to be passed by the fifth respondent on Ext.P8. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE W.P(C) No. 8254 of 2010-F 4 ab