Case: Tata Davy Ltd Vs. State Of Orissa

2. The said appellant was, on February 9, 1988, declared a sick company within the meaning ofthe Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (now referred to as "the Central Act"). On a reference, under section15 of the Central Act made on December 23, 1989, an inquiry under section 16 was made and a scheme was sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (now referred to as "the Board") for the said appellants benefit and it was at the relevant time under implementation.3. For the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85, the said appellant was in arrears of sales tax under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (now referred to as "the State Act). The recovery of the said arrears was sought to be made by attachment of the said appellants property under the provisions of section13A of the State Act. The High Court of Orissa was considering the question whether steps to recover sales tax dues under section13A of the State Act were in the nature of proceedings by way of execution, distress or the like contemplated by section22(1) of the Central Act in a writ petition filed by Aluminium Industries Ltd. (the appellant in the other appeals) which was, as aforestated, in a position similar to that of the said appellant. The said appellant intervened in the writ petition and was heard.4. The High Court said in its judgment on the writ petition (see Tata Davy Ltd. v. Union of India that the question before it was whether the provisions of section22(1) of the Central Act overrode the provisions of section13A of the State Act. It held that there was no irreconcilable conflict between the two provisions as they operated in separate and distinct fields and, therefore, both were capable of being obeyed. The result was that section22(1) of the Central Act "would not protect the properties of industrial companies from being proceeded against in exercise of the power under section13A of the State Act.5. Very soon after the High Courts judgment this Court decided the case of Gram Panchayat v. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Limited to which we shall make reference. The appellants applied to the High Court to review its decision in the light of the Vallabh Glass Works judgment. The High Court expressed its inability to do so.Hence, these appeals.

Court's reasoning:
9. Vallabh Glass Works (SC); (SC) judgment covers these appeals. Arrears of taxes and the like due from sick industrial companies that satisfy the conditions set out in section22(1) of the Central Act cannot be recovered by coercive process unless the said Board gives its consent thereto.10. The Central Act is enacted under entry 52 of List I of the Seventh Schedule. The said entry 52 empowers Parliament to legislate in respect of "industries" the control of which by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be in the "public interest". The Central Act declares that it is "for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in clauses (b) and (c) of article 39 of the Constitution", namely "that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to serve the common good" and "that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment". The Central Act does not impair or interfere with the rights of the States to legislate with respect to sales tax under entry 54 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. In the larger interest of the industrial health of the nation, section22 of the Central Act requires all creditors seeking to recover their dues from the sick industrial companies in respect of whom an inquiry under section 16 is pending or a scheme is under preparation or consideration or has been sanctioned, to obtain the consent of the said Board to such recovery. If such consent is not secured and the recovery is deferred, the creditors remedy is protected for the period of deferment is, by reason of sub-section (5) of section 22, excluded in the computation of the period of limitation. The words "any other law" in section 22 cannot, therefore, be read in the manner suggested by learned counsel for the respondents.11. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer v. Corromandal Pharmaceuticals (SC);, 11 (SC) judgment dealt with a sick industrial company which was enabled to collect amounts like sales tax after the date of the sanctioned scheme. This Court said, "such amounts like sales tax, etc., which the sick industrial company is enabled to collect after the date of the sanctioned scheme, legitimately belonging to the Revenue, cannot be and could not have been intended to be covered within section22 of the Act". It added that the issue that had arisen before it had not arisen in the case of Vallabh Glass Works (SC); (SC). It did not appear therefrom or from any other decision of this Court or of the High Courts "that in any one of them, the liability of the sick company dealt with therein itself arose, for the first time after the date of the sanctioned scheme. At any rate, in none of those cases a situation arose whereby the sick industrial unit was enabled to collect tax due to the Revenue from the customers after the sanctioned scheme but the sick unit simply folded its hands and declined to pay it over to the Revenue, for which proceedings for recovery had to be taken". Clearly, the facts in Deputy Commercial Tax Officer v. Corromandal Pharmaceuticals (SC); (SC) differ from the facts of Vallabh Glass Works case (SC); (SC) and those before us. The reference to Deputy Commercial Tax Officer v. Corromandal Pharmaceuticals (SC); (SC) is, therefore, inapposite.12. We hold, in the premises, that the respondents cannot recover the aforementioned arrears of sales tax from the appellants without first seeking the consent of the said Board in this behalf.