Mawana Sugars Limited vs The Collector, Department Of ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 4025 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+            W.P.(C) No. 12133/2009 & CM No. 12321/2009

                                   Date of decision: 06th October, 2009

      MAWANA SUGARS LIMITED

                           Through:    Ms.Anuradha and Mr. Anish
                                       Kapur, Advocates for the
                                       Appellant.
                    VERSUS

      THE COLLECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE & TAXES &
      ANR.
                        Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahna, Advocate
                        for the Respondent No. 1.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

      1.     Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
             the judgment?

      2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not?

      3.     Whether the judgment should be reported
             in the Digest?

                                   JUDGMENT

A.K. SIKRI, J. (ORAL).

1. It is not necessary to take note of the facts and

circumstances of the case in detail keeping in view the nature of the

order which we propose to pass. The respondent No. 2 herein,

namely, DCM Limited was the predecessor of the petitioner herein

who was to pay certain sales tax dues which related to the period

1971-72 to 1975-76 for which notice of writ of demand dated 18th

June, 2009, has been served upon the petitioner. On 16th April,

1990, a scheme for arrangement was approved by the Company

Judge of this Court, pursuant to which respondent No. 2 was

demerged into four companies, namely, DCM Limited (residuary

company, respondent No. 2), Shriram Industrial Enterprises Limited,

the name of which is changed to Mawana Sugars Limited, (petitioner

herein), DCM Shriram Industries Limited and DCM Industries

Limited. The petitioner is willing to pay the legitimate dues of sales

tax as payable by the erstwhile DCM. However, the grievance of

the petitioner is that inspite of several demands made by the

petitioner to respondent No. 1 requesting for production of relevant

records of the assessment proceedings, the respondent No.1 has not

acceded to the said request and on the other hand, insisted for

making the payments by the petitioner. It is stated in the writ

petition that the petitioner was able to locate a letter dated 22nd July,

1989, addressed by erstwhile DCM to its Advocate annexing copies

of the remand orders for the assessment years 1971-72 to 1973-74,

as per which sales tax demand had been substantially reduced, it is

because of this reason to verify the genuineness of the demand

raised vide notice of writ of demand dated 18th June, 2009, the

petitioner is reverting respondent No. 1 for producing the relevant

records and documents. It is submitted by the petitioner that while

on the one hand, these details are not provided, on the other hand,

the respondent No. 1 is contemplating to take coercive steps for the

recovery of the demand.

2. Under these circumstances, apart from making a prayer

for quashing of impugned notice dated 18th June, 2009, the

petitioner has also made a prayer to direct respondent No. 1 to

provide the relevant records including the assessment orders,

remand orders etc. to the petitioner and thereafter raise a fresh

demand upon the petitioner as per the Demand Collection Register

after taking into consideration the reliefs granted by way of the

remand orders, monies already paid and setting aside of the refund

due and after ascertaining the actual quantum of the demand

attributable/allocable to the petitioner.

3. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of

the case, particularly the fact when the assessment orders and

remand orders are passed, it was the erstwhile DCM which

demerged into four companies and the petitioner herein come into

being as a demerged company only on 16th April, 2009 after the

approval of a scheme of arrangement of this Court, we are of the

opinion that the aforesaid request of the petitioner to respondent

No. 1 to provide the aforesaid records appears to be reasonable and

justified. We also find that the petitioner vide its communication

dated 8th September, 2009, had offered to pay a sum of

Rs.60,60,065/- to the respondent, being the demand as calculated by

the petitioner on the basis of the scanty records available with him.

Since this is the amount which is accepted by the petitioner, in any

case, it would be proper for the petitioner to pay this amount to

respondent No. 1 forthwith.

4. In these circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition

with the following directions:-

(1) The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.60,60,065/-

within two weeks from today.

(2) After making the aforesaid payment, the petitioner shall

approach respondent No. 1 for supply of the records as demanded

by the petitioner by means of various letters addressed to

respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 1 shall provide those records.

On the basis of those records, the demand is to be worked out again,

this exercise shall be undertaken by the parties. Till that is done,

respondent No. 1 shall not claim any further amounts.

(3) After calculating the fresh demand on the basis of the

aforesaid document, if any further amount is found payable by the

petitioner, then the same shall be paid by the petitioner within

fifteen days of raising such demand. Likewise, in case any refund is

due to the petitioner, the same shall be given back to the petitioner

within fifteen days thereafter.

CM No. 12321/2009 in W.P.(C) No. 12133/2009

5. With the dismissal of the petition itself, this application

has become infructuous. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as

having become infructuous.

A.K. SIKRI (JUDGE)

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL (JUDGE) October 06, 2009/sb