9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 40 - HC - GSTLegality of creating further dues by way of passing orders by the G.S.T. Department once the Resolution Plan has been approved by the NCLT - HELD THAT - This Court in M/S NS Papers Limited And Another Vs. Union of India Through Secretary and Others 2024 (12) TMI 989 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT after dealing with a catena of judgments rendered by the Supreme Court and also other High Courts held as Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the arguments raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents is without any merit on two counts. Firstly it is clear by the letter dated March 8 2021 that the petitioner had informed the Income Tax Authorities with regard to approval of resolution plan. Secondly the department itself had filed a claim before the Resolution Professional and accordingly the argument that the department was not aware of the IBC proceedings holds no water. In view of the above law laid down by the Supreme Court the principle is crystal clear that once Resolution Plan has been approved by the NCLT all other creditors are barred from raising their claims subsequently as the same would disrupt the entire resolution process. Conclusion - The impugned assessment order and demand notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act 2017 issued after approval of the Resolution Plan are quashed and set aside. Petition allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court are: (a) Whether the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department can initiate or continue proceedings to create or enforce tax demands against a corporate debtor for periods prior to the approval of a Resolution Plan under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) once such Resolution Plan has been approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). (b) Whether the impugned assessment order and demand notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 against the petitioner for the financial year 2017-2018, post approval of the Resolution Plan, are valid and enforceable. (c) The applicability and scope of the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) during CIRP, particularly in relation to statutory dues such as GST demands. (d) The extent to which claims or demands not included in the approved Resolution Plan can be revived or enforced against the successful Resolution Applicant after approval of the plan. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (a) and (b): Validity of GST demands post-approval of Resolution Plan Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court considered the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), particularly Sections 14 (moratorium) and 31 (approval of Resolution Plan), and Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, which deals with determination of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded. The Court relied heavily on Supreme Court precedents, including Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., Vaibhav Goyal & Another v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Another, and Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta & Others, which elucidate the effect of CIRP and the moratorium on claims and demands against the corporate debtor. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that once the Resolution Plan is approved by the NCLT under Section 31 of the IBC, the successful Resolution Applicant is entitled to a "fresh start" free from any new or belated claims not included in the Resolution Plan. The moratorium under Section 14 prohibits initiation or continuation of proceedings against the corporate debtor, including recovery of dues, during CIRP. The Court noted that allowing the GST Department to pass an assessment order and issue a demand notice post-approval of the Resolution Plan for prior periods would violate the moratorium and the fundamental scheme of the IBC. Key evidence and findings: The petitioner had undergone CIRP starting October 10, 2020, with the Resolution Plan approved on July 19, 2022. The GST Department passed the impugned assessment order and demand notice on January 27, 2025, relating to financial year 2017-2018, which was after the approval of the Resolution Plan. The Resolution Professional had duly informed the GST Department and included its claim in the CIRP process. The GST Department's claim was thus known and accounted for during CIRP. Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that no new claims or demands can be raised after approval of the Resolution Plan, especially when the creditor had the opportunity to submit claims during CIRP. The GST Department's post-approval demand was therefore held to be invalid and barred by the moratorium and the finality of the Resolution Plan. Treatment of competing arguments: The GST Department argued that the assessment related to a prior period and was not part of the Resolution Plan. The Court rejected this, holding that allowing such belated claims would undermine the purpose of the IBC and the moratorium, creating uncertainty and defeating the fresh start principle for the Resolution Applicant. The Court also dismissed any sophistry suggesting assessments can be kept pending indefinitely to be finalized post-Resolution Plan approval. Conclusions: The impugned assessment order and demand notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 for the financial year 2017-2018 are quashed and set aside. The GST Department is barred from recovering tax, interest, or penalty post-approval of the Resolution Plan for dues pertaining to periods prior to such approval. Issue (c) and (d): Scope of moratorium and treatment of claims not included in the Resolution Plan Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 14 of the IBC imposes a moratorium on initiation or continuation of legal proceedings against the corporate debtor during CIRP. Section 31 provides that the Resolution Plan, once approved, binds all stakeholders and extinguishes claims not included in the plan. The Supreme Court's decision in Vaibhav Goyal & Another v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Another clarified that statutory dues not part of the Resolution Plan stand extinguished and cannot be revived post-approval. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court underscored that the moratorium is a protective shield to prevent disruption of the CIRP and to ensure a clean slate for the Resolution Applicant. Allowing claims not submitted or decided during CIRP to be raised later would be contrary to the statutory scheme and the objectives of the IBC. The Court quoted the Supreme Court's observation that "a successful resolution applicant cannot suddenly be faced with 'undecided' claims after the resolution plan submitted by him has been accepted as this would amount to a hydra head popping up which would throw into uncertainty amounts payable." Key evidence and findings: The GST Department had filed its claim before the Resolution Professional and was aware of the CIRP proceedings. The Resolution Plan was approved with knowledge of such claims. The impugned demand was made after approval, which is impermissible. Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that all claims must be submitted and decided during CIRP. Post-approval, no new claims can be entertained or enforced. The moratorium prevents any recovery action during CIRP and post-approval claims are barred if not included in the Resolution Plan. Treatment of competing arguments: The GST Department contended that the demand related to prior years and thus was valid. The Court rejected this, emphasizing that the timing and inclusion in the Resolution Plan are determinative, not merely the period to which the claim relates. Conclusions: The moratorium under Section 14 and the binding effect of the Resolution Plan under Section 31 collectively bar the GST Department from raising or enforcing demands not included in the Resolution Plan post-approval. The Court held that such demands are invalid and cannot be enforced. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court's crucial legal reasoning is encapsulated in the following verbatim excerpts: "If this argument is accepted then all authorities would be in a position to keep assessment/re-assessment pending till completion of the Resolution Plan, and thereafter, culminate the same and saddle the successful Resolution Applicant with an unknown burden. Such an action cannot be countenanced as the same would be an anathema to the fundamental principles of the moratorium provided under the Code." "A successful resolution applicant cannot suddenly be faced with 'undecided' claims after the resolution plan submitted by him has been accepted as this would amount to a hydra head popping up which would throw into uncertainty amounts payable by a prospective resolution applicant who would successfully take over the business of the corporate debtor." "The underlying principle of the Code is to give a fresh start to the Resolution Applicant. Any new liability being fastened after the approval of the Resolution Plan would inherently and palpably be illegal and go beyond the Lakshman Rekha of the Code." Core principles established by the Court include: (i) The moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC prohibits initiation or continuation of proceedings, including tax assessments and recovery, against the corporate debtor during CIRP. (ii) Once the Resolution Plan is approved by the NCLT under Section 31, all claims not included in the plan stand extinguished and cannot be revived or enforced thereafter. (iii) The successful Resolution Applicant is entitled to a "fresh start" free from any new or belated claims relating to periods prior to the approval of the Resolution Plan. (iv) Allowing post-approval claims would defeat the purpose of the IBC and the moratorium, create uncertainty, and disrupt the resolution process. Final determinations on each issue are: - The impugned assessment order and demand notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, issued after approval of the Resolution Plan, are quashed and set aside. - The GST Department is barred from recovering any tax, interest, or penalty for periods prior to the approval of the Resolution Plan once such plan has been sanctioned by the NCLT. - The moratorium and the binding effect of the Resolution Plan preclude any new or belated claims post-approval.
|
