SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

C.A. No.-008607-008610 - 2002Supreme Court08 February 20056 pages
For Petitioner: K. K. MANI
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

Southern Agrifurane Industries Ltd. (appellant) sought deferment of sales tax dues for the period 1.10.1993 to 30.9.1994. Proceedings under the Sick Industries Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) were ongoing. The Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) sanctioned a rehabilitation scheme in 1993, which included a deferment of sales tax of Rs. 623 lakhs. The State Government initially agreed to defer sales tax for one year from 1.10.1993 to 30.9.1994, repayable over five years after a one-year moratorium. This was notified under Section 17A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Later, the BIFR sanctioned an enhanced rehabilitation cost, leading to an amended notification increasing the deferred sales tax to Rs. 1,246 lakhs. The appellant's net worth became positive, and BIFR closed its case. The Commercial Tax Officer demanded the balance sales tax and interest under Section 24(3). The appellant proposed a settlement, which was partially accepted by the State Government, allowing payment in instalments but without waiving interest.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the appellant was liable to pay interest on the sales tax dues to the extent that the deferment exceeded the amount necessary for rehabilitation. The Tribunal affirmed the concurrent finding of fact by the lower authorities that the initial scheme sanctioned by BIFR had a firm limit of Rs. 623 lakhs for sales tax deferral. While the scheme was later amended to Rs. 1,246 lakhs due to enhanced rehabilitation costs, this deferment was only permissible under Section 17A(2) as long as it was necessary for the company to be taken out of "sickness." The Tribunal reasoned that once the company's net worth became positive and it ceased to be a sick industrial undertaking, any further deferment beyond the actual rehabilitation need would not be covered by Section 17A but would fall under Section 24(3), making the appellant liable for interest. The appeals were dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appellant is liable to pay interest on the balance of sales tax dues for the period 1.10.1993 to 30.9.1994 under Section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, or is exempt under Section 17A(2) of the Act? Assessee's contention: The appellant argued that the entire deferred payment of sales tax, as per the amended scheme and notifications, should not attract interest under Section 17A(2) as long as the conditions for deferred payment were satisfied. They relied on the BIFR's amended scheme and the subsequent notifications which permitted deferment of tax for rehabilitation purposes. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that the deferment of sales tax was limited to the amount necessary for rehabilitation and that any excess deferment would attract interest under Section 24(3). They argued that the initial deferment was Rs. 623 lakhs, and the subsequent increase to Rs. 1,246 lakhs was justified only to the extent of rehabilitation needs. Once the company ceased to be sick, the benefit of Section 17A(2) would not apply to the extent of the excess amount.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 24(3),Section 17A(2),Section 17A,Section 24(1),Section 19(3),Section 3(1)(o),Section 15

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 8607-8610 of 2002 PETITIONER: Southern Agrifurane Industries Ltd. RESPONDENT: Commercial Tax Officer & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/02/2005 BENCH: Ruma Pal,Arijit Pasayat & C.K. Thakker

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T RUMA PAL, J.

The issue to be decided in these appeals is whether the appellant is liable to pay interest on the balance of sales tax dues for the period 1.10.93 to 30.9.94 under Section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 or was it exempt from doing so under Section 17A(2) of that Act? The appellant-company is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Sometime in 1988 proceedings were commenced in respect of the appellant under the Sick Industries Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. (referred to hereafter as SICA). Ultimately on 28th September, 1993 a scheme was sanctioned by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as ’BIFR’) for rehabilitation of the appellant. Under the heading, "Cost of the scheme and Means of financing", the BIFR noted the

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 17A(2)

All 72 judgments and leading authorities on Section 17A(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →