9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Respondent produced herewith as Annexure-N; ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or such writ or order to quash the notice for intimation liability dated 25/5/24 bearing File No. DCCT(A)4.5/DGSTO-04/Audit/No. 161/2023-24 issued by the 3rd Respondent vide Annexure-S." 2. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 08.10.2021, the National Company Law Tribunal [NCLT] initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [CIRP] against the petitioner-Company under Section 227 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code [for short, 'the IBC'] r/w Section 5 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Insolvency and Liquidation Proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 11.08.2023 and proceeded to issue an audit report on 15.12.2023, which was followed by an intimation under Section 73 (5) of the KGST Act, 2017 dated 22.12.2023 as well as the Show Cause Notice under Section 73 (1) of the KGST Act, 2017 to which also the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 24.01.2024. In pursuance of the same, the respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 under Section 73 of the KGST Act, 2017. Subsequently, the respondent No.3 issued one more intimation under Section 73 (5) of the KGST Act to the petitioner in relation to the financial year 2019-20, which have not been completed even till today. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 in relation to the financial year 2018-19 and initia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be quashed. 7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, upon approval of the IRP by the NCLT, all prior claims by the respondents, including the impugned order and proceedings would stand extinguished as held in Ghanashyam Mishra's case (supra) wherein, the Apex Court held as under: "102. In the result, we answer the questions framed by us as under: 102.1. That once a resolution plan is duly approved by the adjudicating authority under sub-section (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 employe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial years 2018-19 and 2019-20 and the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 in relation to the financial year 2018-19 and the impugned proceedings in relation to financial year 2019-20 are clearly without jurisdiction or authority of law in the light of the undisputed fact that the Resolution Plan has already been approved by the NCLT and the judgments referred to supra. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order and the proceedings deserve to be quashed.
9. In the result, the following:
ORDER
A. The writ petition is hereby allowed.
B. The impugned order at Annexure-N dated 29.04.2024, the notice for intimation at Annexure-S dated 25.05.2024 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto are hereby quashed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
