Uncrystallised tax dues cannot override insolvency priorities, and repeated claims may be barred by res judicata and estoppel.

A tax demand based on a best judgment assessment and an uncrystallised liability could not be re-agitated in insolvency proceedings where the same claim had already been addressed earlier; the Tribunal held that res judicata and estoppel applied, and the challenge was barred. It further held that statutory first-charge provisions in the tax law yielded to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, so the State's dues could not displace the insolvency distribution framework or be treated as secured debt. Rainbow Papers was confined to its facts and did not confer priority on uncrystallised tax dues. The impugned order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was barred by res judicata and estoppel from re-agitating the claim based on the same best judgment assessment and uncrystallised demand. (ii) Whether the tax dues could override the insolvency framework and be treated at par with secured creditors, including in light of the statutory first-charge provisions and the inapplicability of Rainbow Papers on the facts.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was barred by res judicata and estoppel from re-agitating the claim based on the same best judgment assessment and uncrystallised demand.

Analysis: The claim had already been dealt with in earlier proceedings, where only ascertained and crystallised demand was permitted to be placed before the resolution professional. The present claim again rested on a best judgment assessment, while regular assessment had not been completed. In that background, the same controversy could not be reopened, and the appellant's conduct attracted both res judicata and estoppel.

Conclusion: The appellant was barred from re-agitating the same claim.

Issue (ii): Whether the tax dues could override the insolvency framework and be treated at par with secured creditors, including in light of the statutory first-charge provisions and the inapplicability of Rainbow Papers on the facts.

Analysis: The statutory first-charge provisions in the tax enactments were held to contain an exception in favour of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The Tribunal relied on the later Supreme Court exposition that Rainbow Papers is confined to its own facts and does not permit the State's dues to displace the insolvency distribution framework in every case. Since the demand had not been crystallised and the provisions relied on expressly yielded to the Code, the appellant could not claim secured-creditor status or priority over the insolvency process.

Conclusion: The tax dues did not override the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the appellant was not entitled to be treated as a secured creditor.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was upheld and the tax authority's challenge to the resolution professional's treatment of its claim failed in entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tax demand is not finally crystallised and the applicable taxing statute itself saves the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the State cannot reopen the same demand in insolvency proceedings or claim priority over the insolvency distribution framework merely on the basis of a statutory first-charge clause.

---