KERALA CLAYS AND CERAMIC PRODUCTS LTD. VS TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, 2000 PTD-KERALA-HIGH-COURT-INDIA 2049 (1997)

Income-tax--

---Recovery of tax---Arrears of tax due by company---Successor liable to pay arrears---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S. 220.

Held, dismissing the writ appeal that the Single Judge had recorded that protection was given only for the amounts specified in the balance-sheet audited as on December 31, 1975. The tax dues were not shown in the balance-sheet. A statutory liability cannot be evaded by the petitioner company, which was the successor-in-interest of the fourth respondent which was taken over by the Government. As successor-in-interest, the petitioner was liable to pay the amount. In view of these findings and considering the fact that the matter related to the assessment year 1974-75 and the writ petition was filed in the year 1987 and the writ appeal in 1991, the judgment of the Single Judge deserved to be affirmed.

Kerala Clays and Ceramic Products Ltd. v. T.R.O. (1991) 190 ITR 164 (Ker.) affirmed.

P. Balachandran for Appellant.

N. R. K. Nair for Respondents Nos. l to 3.

JUDGMENT

U. P. SINGH, C. J.---We have heard counsel for the appellant and Mr. N.R.K. Nair, standing counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Respondent No.4 had not filed any counter-affidavit in the original petition and no one appeared on behalf of respondent No.4. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge which is a well-considered judgment. After considering each and every aspect of the matter, the learned Single Judge recorded (see (1991) 199 ITR 164, 172):

It should be remembered that, under section 6 of the Acquisition Act, the assets and liabilities have vested in the Government company. By excluding section 6, the petitioner cannot escape liability for the income-tax arrears and the interest due. It should be remembered that protection is given only for the amounts specified in the balance-sheet audited as on December 31, 1975. The tax dues were not shown in the balance-sheet. A statutory liability cannot be evaded by the petitioner. The petitioner is the successor-in-interest for the fourth respondent which was taken over by the Government. As successor-in-interest, the petitioner is certainly liable to pay the amount.

Looking at the entire facts of the case, it looks as if the income-tax authorities have unnecessarily granted too much lenience and went into prolonged correspondence with the petitioner and the Government to realise what is legitimately due to them. It looks as if they proceeded on the footing that there was a moratorium and hence they should not take coercive steps. The petitioner should thank them for the undue lenience shown to it. The petitioner is certainly bound to pay the amount as it constitutes a liability of the taken over company. It should be remembered that the assets and liabilities of the fourth respondent have vested in the petitioner-company. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this original petition.

In the result, the original petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. Respondents Nos. l to 3 are entitled to their costs. The fourth respondent shall bear its own costs. The Advocate's fee fixed at Rs.1,500."

In view of these findings and considering the fact that this relates to the assessment year 1974-75 and the writ petition was filed in the year 1987 and the writ appeal in 1991, we find no reason to take a different view of the matter and we accordingly affirm the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the appeal is dismissed.

M.B.A./4087/FCAppeal dismissed.