Case Details: Birla Jute Industries Ltd. vs. State of M.P. (2026) 43 Centax 385 (M.P.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- Vivek Rusia & Pradeep Mittal, JJ.
- S/Shri Kishore Shrivastava, Senior Adv., Ms Aditi Shrivastava, Prem Mahesh Francis, Amit Shrivastava, & Abhijit Shrivastava, Advs, for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Abhijeet Awasthi, Deputy Adv., General, with Rajvardhan Dutt Padraha, Government Advocate, for Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner-company, engaged in the manufacture of cement, had challenged the validity of the M.P. Entry Tax Act, 1976. While granting interim protection, the High Court directed that if the writ petition ultimately failed, the petitioner would be liable to pay the tax along with interest at 18% per annum. After dismissal of the writ petition and the SLP, the Commercial Tax Officer demanded tax and interest amounting to approximately ₹1.08 crore. Subsequently, the petitioner applied under the Madhya Pradesh Bakaya Rashi Saral Samadhan Yojna, 2002, for settlement of the outstanding interest liability, deposited the prescribed amount, and obtained Form-III settlement certificates. Thereafter, the Additional Commissioner cancelled the settlement certificates on the ground that the interest liability arose from the High Court’s interim order and not under the Entry Tax Act. Aggrieved by the cancellation of the settlement benefit and the consequential demand, the petitioner filed the present writ petitions.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the interest at 18% per annum was imposed pursuant to the Court’s interim order and did not constitute interest leviable under the Entry Tax Act or the Samadhan Scheme. Consequently, such interest fell outside the scope of the Scheme and was not eligible for settlement. The Court further observed that the issue had already been decided against the petitioner in an earlier writ petition, wherein it was held that the benefit of the Samadhan Scheme was unavailable, and that decision had attained finality. Since the order directing payment of 18% interest had become final, the liability could not be reduced or settled under the Scheme. Accordingly, the cancellation of the settlement certificates and the department’s demand were upheld, and the writ petitions were dismissed.
List of Cases Cited
- W.P No. 5150-2002 order dated 07.07.2003 — Relied On [Para 5, 7, 8, 9, 12]
- LPA No.495-2003 dismissed on 01.09.2005 — Referred [Para 6]
- High Court order dated 17.03.1992 (Annexure P-1) — Relied On [Para 10, 12]
- National Bal Bhawan & another v. Union of India — (2003) 9 SCC 671 — Referred [Para 11]
- Prem Chandra Agarwal v. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation — (2009) 11 SCC 479 — Referred [Para 11]
- Kalabharti Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania — (2010) 9 SCC 437 — Referred [Para 11]
- State of Kerala v. M.K Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth, Naduvil(dead) — (1996) 1 SCC 435 — Referred [Para 11]
- Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjun Singh — 1971 (3) SCC 844 — Referred [Para 11]
