2025 (7) TMI 987 - HC - GST

Recovery of GST Demand - Creation of further dues 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 that The law cannot be read in a manner wherein the basic structure of the Code is breached by hindering the flow of the same by creation of roadblocks and dams ? 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. 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. There are no reason to keep this matter pending and accordingly the impugned Assessment order dated December 26 2023 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/UPGST Act 2017 by the Joint Commissioner (respondent No.3) for tax period 2017-18 as well as impugned show cause notice dated January 15 2024 issued under Section 73 of the CGST/UPGST Act 2017 against the petitioner relating to tax period 2018-2019 are quashed - petition allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court are:

(a) Whether the tax demands and proceedings initiated by the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Department under Section 73 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for periods prior to the approval of the Resolution Plan under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) can be sustained against the petitioner company post-approval of the Resolution Plan by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

(b) Whether the GST Department can initiate or continue proceedings for recovery of dues relating to periods before the effective date of the Resolution Plan, after the Resolution Plan has been approved and affirmed by the appellate authorities.

(c) The scope and effect of the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, on statutory dues and proceedings initiated by tax authorities during and after CIRP.

(d) The extent to which claims not included in the approved Resolution Plan can be enforced against the Resolution Applicant or the corporate debtor post-approval of the Resolution Plan.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a) and (b): Validity of GST demands and proceedings post-approval of Resolution Plan

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court relied heavily on the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, particularly Sections 14 (moratorium) and 31 (approval of Resolution Plan). The GST Act, 2017, specifically Section 73, empowers authorities to pass orders for recovery of tax dues. The Court also considered a catena of Supreme Court judgments including Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., Vaibhav Goyal & Another v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Another, Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta & Others, and relevant High Court decisions.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court underscored that once the Resolution Plan is approved by the NCLT under Section 31 of the IBC, the Resolution Applicant must be allowed to take over the corporate debtor on a "clean slate." The moratorium under Section 14 prohibits initiation or continuation of proceedings against the corporate debtor during the CIRP, and this protection extends to the period following approval of the Resolution Plan. The Court rejected the notion that tax authorities could keep assessments pending during CIRP and then enforce them post-approval, as it would undermine the fundamental objectives of the IBC.

Key evidence and findings: The petitioner had entered CIRP on October 8, 2021, with the Resolution Plan approved on August 11, 2023, and affirmed on January 5, 2024. The GST Department had filed claims before the Resolution Professional and was aware of the insolvency proceedings. Despite this, the Department passed an assessment order dated December 26, 2023, and issued a show cause notice dated January 15, 2024, for periods prior to the Resolution Plan approval.

Application of law to facts: The Court found that the GST Department's actions in passing the impugned order and issuing the show cause notice post-approval of the Resolution Plan violated the moratorium and the principle of finality enshrined in Section 31 of the IBC. The Department's claim was barred as it was not part of the approved Resolution Plan, and allowing such claims would disrupt the resolution process and defeat the purpose of the IBC.

Treatment of competing arguments: The GST Department argued for the validity of their proceedings and assessments. The Court rejected these arguments, holding that the Department had knowledge of the CIRP and had filed claims before the Resolution Professional. The Court further held that allowing belated claims or assessments after approval of the Resolution Plan would create uncertainty and be contrary to the statutory scheme and judicial precedents.

Conclusions: The Court quashed the impugned assessment order and show cause notice issued post-approval of the Resolution Plan, holding them to be illegal and beyond the "Lakshman Rekha" of the IBC.

Issue (c): Effect of moratorium under Section 14 of IBC on statutory dues and proceedings

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 14 of the IBC imposes a moratorium on all pending or new proceedings against the corporate debtor from the commencement of CIRP until the approval of the Resolution Plan. The Court referred to judgments clarifying that this moratorium extends to statutory dues and proceedings by tax authorities.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that the moratorium is a fundamental aspect of the insolvency resolution process, designed to prevent piecemeal recovery actions that would frustrate the resolution process. It protects the corporate debtor and the Resolution Applicant from fresh claims or proceedings that could jeopardize the viability of the Resolution Plan.

Key evidence and findings: The GST Department's initiation of proceedings and issuance of notices post moratorium and post-approval of the Resolution Plan was found to be inconsistent with the moratorium's protective shield.

Application of law to facts: The Court held that the moratorium bars the initiation or continuation of proceedings for dues relating to periods prior to the CIRP or prior to approval of the Resolution Plan.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Department's contention that assessment and recovery proceedings could continue was rejected as repugnant to the moratorium and the overall scheme of the IBC.

Conclusions: The moratorium under Section 14 bars the GST Department from initiating or continuing proceedings for dues prior to the Resolution Plan approval.

Issue (d): Enforceability of claims not included in the approved Resolution Plan

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 31 of the IBC mandates that the Resolution Plan, once approved, binds all stakeholders and extinguishes claims not included therein. The Court relied on Supreme Court rulings that a successful Resolution Applicant cannot be saddled with "undecided" or belated claims post-approval.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that allowing claims not included in the Resolution Plan to be enforced post-approval would defeat the purpose of giving the Resolution Applicant a fresh start and would create uncertainty and instability in the insolvency resolution process.

Key evidence and findings: The GST Department's claims for tax periods 2017-18 and 2018-19 were not part of the approved Resolution Plan and were raised after its approval.

Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that all claims must be submitted and decided during the CIRP and included in the Resolution Plan to be enforceable. Any subsequent claims are barred.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Department's attempt to enforce additional claims post-approval was dismissed as contrary to the statutory scheme and judicial precedents.

Conclusions: Claims not included in the approved Resolution Plan cannot be enforced against the corporate debtor or Resolution Applicant after approval.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"Once the 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."

"The moratorium provided under the Code is designed 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."

"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 impugned Assessment order dated December 26, 2023 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 as well as the show cause notice dated January 15, 2024 issued under Section 73 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 against the petitioner relating to tax periods prior to the approval of the Resolution Plan are quashed."

Core principles established include the binding nature of the approved Resolution Plan under Section 31 of the IBC, the protective scope of the moratorium under Section 14, and the prohibition of post-approval claims not included in the Resolution Plan. The judgment reinforces the primacy of the insolvency resolution framework over tax recovery proceedings initiated or continued post-approval.