Wp(C)/21011/2012 Of Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/20TH BHADRA 1934 WP(C).No. 21011 of 2012 (B) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S):------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD KELTRON HOUSE, VELLAYAMBALAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. PRASANNA KUMAR. BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN SRI.BINU MATHEW SRI.TERRY V.JAMES SRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 CIRCLE-1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON11-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.21011/12 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMARY RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORETHE BIFR HELD ON 29-5-2012. EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28-12-2011. EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 9-1-2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONERBEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 5-3-2012 FILED BY THEPETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12-3-2012 PASSED BY THISHON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO. 6018/2012. EXT.P6TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 23-8-2012 ON STAY PETITION PASSEDBY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. //True Copy// PA to Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 21011 OF 2012 =================== Dated this the 11[th] day of September, 2012 J U D G M E N T Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and thelearned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 2.Ext.P1 proceedings of the BIFR show that rehabilitation proceedings as provided under the Sick Industrial Company(Special Provisions) Act, 1985 are pending before the Board forIndustrial and Financial Reconstruction. In view of the pendency ofthe said proceedings, prima facie, the petitioner is entitled to thebenefit of Section 22 of the said Act providing for suspension ofcoercive action for recovery of dues including tax. 3.Ext.P2 is the order of assessment for the year 2009-10.Against that order, petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal and P4 staypetition before the 2[nd] respondent. Pursuant to the directions ofthis Court in Ext.P5 judgment, the 2[nd] respondent has passedExt.P6 order on Ext.P4 stay petition. By this order, the petitionerhas been directed to remit 25% of the tax due in instalments. It ischallenging this order, the writ petition is filed. 4.As already stated by me, having regard to the pendency of the enquiry before the BIFR, prima facie, thepetitioner is entitled to suspension of legal proceedings asprovided under Section 22 of the Act noticed above. If that be so,Ext.P6 conditional order is unsustainable. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition quashing Ext.P6 anddirecting the 2[nd] respondent, the appellate authority to passorders on Ext.P3 appeal with notice to the petitioner and asexpeditiously as possible, without insisting on recovery of anyamount due under Ext.P2. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE