TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of State of Gujarat Vs. Essar Steel Ltd. [ 2016 (5) TMI 221 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ], Hon ble Gujarat High Court directed refund of predeposit on acceptance of the appeals and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. In the present case, though the appeals have not been accepted, but an analogous situation has been created with acceptance of the Resolution Plan and extinguishment of all debts/liabilities of the sick unit towards the statutory creditor, i.e. the State Government/Commercial Taxes Department. The consolidated impugned order dated 28.12.2020 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer in the appeals filed by the petitioner is set aside to the extent the applications filed by the petitioner for refund of pre-deposit amounts with interest were rejected. The amounts deposited by M/s. Binani Cement Ltd. as mandatory statutory obligation while filing the appeals before the Tax Board shall be reimbursed to the petitioner within a period of three months from today with interest at the rate applicable by law. These Revisions/ Sales Tax References deserve to be and are hereby allowed - the demands raised by the Commercial Taxes Department against the Corporate Debtor M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditors stand discharged on the date of transfer of the Corporate Debtor unit to the Successful Resolution Applicant which, in the present case, is 20.11.2018. As a consequence, all liabilities of the Corporate Debtor, which do not form a part of the resolution plan as well as those which are settled by the NCLAT, were extinguished as on the date of approval of the resolution plan and resultantly, the pending demands raised against the Corporate Debtor would be rendered infructuous. The pre-deposits made by way of mandatory statutory obligation alongwith the appeals, if any, filed under the tax regime and other amounts deposited under protest would become refundable with interest. These revisions are being considered in this backdrop. Brief summary of the transactions from which demands raised by the department flow and which were the subject matter of the appeals and the amounts deposited by the corporate debtor are narrated below for the sake of ready reference: (1) D.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 211/2014 An order dated 01.08.2012 was passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Anti Evasion, Rajasthan, Circle-II whereby, the Input Tax Credit allowed by the assessing author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.14,91,053 29.10.2013 DD No.423119 3. Rs.1,35,472 25.08.2014 DD No.968042 Total Rs.18,27,925 (3) D.B. Sales Tax Ref./rev. No. 13/2018 An order dated 13.01.2014 (rectified on 23.01.2014) was passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Anti Evasion, Rajasthan, Circle-II whereby, the Input Tax Credit allowed by the assessing authority for the period from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010, was disallowed. Output Tax on High Speed Diesel purchased against full payment of VAT within the State, was imposed along with penalty and interest thereupon. In this manner, total demand of Rs.1,78,09,546/- was raised against the Corporate Debtor. The demand notice was assailed by filing appeal under Section 82 of the RVAT Act, 2003 and thereafter before the learned Tax Board, Ajmer under Section 83 of the RVAT Act, 2003 which were dismissed by the learned Tax Board vide order dated 28.12.2017. The Corporate Debtor deposited the following amounts under protest against the dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Diesel purchased against full payment of VAT within the State, was imposed along with penalty and interest thereupon. In this manner, total demand of Rs.88,05,895/- was raised against the Corporate Debtor. The demand notice was assailed by filing appeal under Section 82 of the RVAT Act, 2003 and thereafter before the learned Tax Board, Ajmer under Section 83 of the RVAT Act, 2003 which were dismissed by the learned Tax Board vide order dated 28.12.2017. The Corporate Debtor deposited the following amounts under protest against the demand raised by the Commercial Taxes Department and towards statutory predeposits: S.No. Amount Deposited On Deposited By 1. Rs.2,36,800 (Pre Deposit for filing 1st Appeal) 09.10.2013 DD No.200567 2. Rs.6,06,963 29.10.2013 DD No.423118 3. Rs.89,790 25.08.2014 DD No.968041 4. Rs.1,620 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g and pending before the Transfer date shall stand withdrawn, without any further act, instrument or deed (b) Para 6.2.3.5(g) no amount shall be payable for any liability of the Corporate debtor towards tax, fee, interest or penalty for which the assessment in respect of applicable tax laws have not been completed . (c) Para 6.5.6 other than the discharge of the Resolution amount towards the liabilities of the financial creditors, the operational creditors; contingent liabilities and the CIRP costs, no other payment shall be made by the Corporate debtor for any liabilities of Corporate debtor for the period till the transfer date . He also referred to the following pertinent prayers made in the SLP which stands rejected: (a) admit and allow the appeal filed by the appellant against the impugned Final Judgment dated 14.11.2018 passed by the Hon ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 82, 123, 188, 216 234 of 2018; and/or (b) pass any other or further orders which Your Lordships may deem to be fit and proper in the interest of justice. ... Considered in light of the ratio of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de the notices which are impugned in this writ petition and any other demands which they may contemplate for the period prior to the resolution plan being finalized. The demand notices are ex-facie illegal, arbitrary and per-seand cannot be sustained. The issue regarding entitlement of the petitioner M/s. UltraTech being the Successful Resolution Applicant to receive refund of the amounts deposited with the Commercial Taxes Department by way of mandatory statutory has also been concluded by this Court vide order dated 18.04.2022 passed in a bunch of Sales Tax References/Revisions led by D.B. Sales Tax Ref./Revision No.9/2021 (M/s. Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department Anr.) wherein it was held: Drawing analogy from the conclusions drawn by this court in the judgment dated 07.04.2020, any demand made by the State Commercial Taxes Department in excess of that approved by the NCLAT would have to be struck off and if any amount has already been received over and above what has been approved under the Resolution Plan, the same would have to be refunded. The Commercial Taxes Department issued the order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, that once such a resolution plan was approved by the Adjudicating Authority, all such claims/dues owed to the State/Central Government or any local authority including tax authorities, which were not part of the resolution plan shall stand extinguished. 95. In the result, we answer the questions framed by us as under: (i) That once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under subsection (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders. On the date of approval of resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all such claims, which are not a part of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan; (ii) 2019 amendment to Section 31 of the I B Code is clarificatory and declaratory in nature and therefore will be effective from the date on which I B Code has come into effect; (ii ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the petitioner for refund of pre-deposit amounts with interest were rejected. The amounts deposited by M/s. Binani Cement Ltd. as mandatory statutory obligation while filing the appeals before the Tax Board shall be reimbursed to the petitioner within a period of three months from today with interest at the rate applicable by law. In wake of the discussion made herein above, we are of the view that these Revisions/ Sales Tax References deserve to be and are hereby allowed with the following directions:- (a) the demands raised by the Commercial Taxes Department against the Corporate Debtor M/s. Binani Cement Limited except to the extent admitted by NCLAT are declared to be infructuous/ are quashed/struck down. (b) the amounts deposited by the Corporate Debtor under protest and by way of pre-deposit as mandatory statutory obligation while filing the appeals, shall be refunded to the petitioner M/s. UltraTech Nathdwara Cement Limited being the Successful Resolution Applicant with applicable interest as per law within a period of 60 days. The Revisions/ Sales Tax References are allowed in these terms. A copy of this order be placed in each file. - - TaxTMI - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
