Modi Industries Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 168; [s.b. sinha & h.s. bedi, jj ] determination of compensation meaning of income of victim held, the term income has different connotations for different purposes. a court of law, having regard to the change in societal conditions must consider the question not only having regard to pay packet the employee carries home at the end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family. loss caused to the family on a death of a near and dear one can hardly be compensated on monetary terms. section 168 uses the word just compensation which, in our opinion, should be assigned a broad meaning. it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the private sector companies in place of introducing a pension scheme takes recourse to payment of contributory provident fund, gratuity and other perks to attract the people who are efficient and hard working. different offers made to an officer by the employer, same may be either for the benefit of the employee himself or for the benefit of the entire family if some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants is required to be determined. the amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted. - in the said circulars the commissioner clearly stated that no recovery of sale tax dues will be made from a sick unit without permission of the board as provided under section 22 of the act.1. heard counsel for the parties.2. admittedly, the petitioner is a sick unit within the meaning of section 3(1)(o) of the sick industrial companies (special provisions) act, 1985 (briefly, the act).3. the petitioner seeks quashing of the recovery proceedings initiated in regard to sales tax dues. our attention has been drawn by counsel for the petitioner to the circulars dated 25-8-1995 and 6-11-1989 issued by the trade tax commissioner. in the said circulars the commissioner clearly stated that no recovery of sale tax dues will be made from a sick unit without permission of the board as provided under section 22 of the act. it is trite that the circulars are binding on the departmental authorities.4. it is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that idbi was appointed as creating agency for preparing a rehabilitation scheme within the meaning of section 18 of the act, which is yet to be finalised.5. shorn of merits, no recovery could be made from the petitioner in the teeth of the above circulars and, therefore, we have no hesitation in staying the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner a sick unit. however, it will be open to the respondents to make recovery with the permission of the board within the meaning of section 22 of the act or after rehabilitation scheme is finalised under section 18 of the act.6. in the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed and recovery proceedings initiated in regard to sales tax dues for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 under the u.p. and central sales tax act will remain under animated suspension until permission is obtained by the respondents under section 22 of the act or rehabilitation scheme is finalised under section 18 of the act, whichever is earlier.