TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court dismisses challenges to tax assessments during insolvency</h1> The High Court of Madras dismissed four writ petitions challenging revised assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act for different ... Validity of revised assessment orders - Revenue raises an objection that the orders made by Original Authority having been carried in appeal before Statutory Appellate Authority cannot now be called in question in these writ petitions alongside challenge to orders made by Appellate Authority in the stay petitions - HELD THAT:- The writ petitioner company namely Diamond Engineering (Chennai) Private Limited represented by its Senior Vice President (Taxation), cannot maintain these writ petitions and any action on behalf of the writ petitioner company / dealer, which is a juristic person can be taken only by the IRP. Petition not maintainable. Issues:- Challenge to revised assessment orders under TNVAT Act for different Assessment Years.- Objection to questioning orders made by Original Authority and Appellate Authority.- Initiation of insolvency proceedings against the company before NCLT.- Appointment of Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) by NCLT.- Suspension of powers of the board of directors and actions to be taken by IRP under IBC.- Maintainability of the writ petitions by the company during insolvency proceedings.Analysis:The High Court of Madras dealt with four writ petitions challenging revised assessment orders under the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act for different Assessment Years. The court noted that the central issue in all four petitions was the same, with only the Assessment Years varying. The petitions contested the revised assessment orders by the Original Authority and the orders by the Statutory Appellate Authority in the stay petitions. However, the Revenue counsel objected, stating that the company's actions should be taken by the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) due to insolvency proceedings initiated against the company.The NCLT had appointed an IRP for the company, and the court observed that as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the powers of the board of directors of the corporate debtor were suspended, and the IRP was responsible for managing the affairs of the company. The court agreed with the Revenue counsel's argument that any legal action on behalf of the company could only be taken by the IRP during the insolvency process. Consequently, the court dismissed all four writ petitions as not maintainable, allowing the IRP to pursue any necessary legal proceedings on behalf of the company. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to the legal framework established under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code during insolvency proceedings. It emphasized the suspension of the company's powers and the exclusive authority of the Insolvency Resolution Professional to act on behalf of the corporate debtor. The court's decision to dismiss the writ petitions underscored the need for proper legal representation and compliance with the applicable laws in such situations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
