Statutory first charge and insolvency moratorium determine tax claim priority, while post-CIRP recovery and attachment remain barred.

A statutory first charge under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was treated as creating a secured claim for insolvency purposes, while claims under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 were not elevated to secured status because no pari materia first-charge provision existed. Tax assessments made after commencement of CIRP were held subject to the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and assessments or recovery steps taken after liquidation were barred by Section 33(5). The authority could determine tax liability during the moratorium, but it could not enforce recovery or continue attachment against the corporate debtor's assets.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether tax assessments and attachment actions taken after commencement of CIRP or during liquidation could be sustained in view of the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. (ii) Whether the tax department's claims for earlier assessment years, and those covered by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, were entitled to treatment as secured claims, and whether claims under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 could be treated similarly.

Issue (i): Whether tax assessments and attachment actions taken after commencement of CIRP or during liquidation could be sustained in view of the moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The assessments for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 were made after commencement of CIRP and therefore during the subsistence of moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The assessments for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 were made after the liquidation order and were hit by Section 33(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The attachment was also found to be contrary to the insolvency regime. The Tribunal accepted that, during the moratorium, the authority could determine tax liabilities but could not enforce recovery proceedings or continue attachment against the corporate debtor's assets.

Conclusion: The challenge to the treatment of post-moratorium and liquidation-period claims failed, and the impugned treatment of those claims was upheld against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the tax department's claims for earlier assessment years, and those covered by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, were entitled to treatment as secured claims, and whether claims under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 could be treated similarly.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that claims covered by Section 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 were secured claims because the statute created a first charge on the property of the dealer, bringing the department within the category of secured creditor for those periods. By contrast, the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 did not contain a pari materia first-charge provision, so the older assessment-year claims could not be elevated to secured status on that basis. The Tribunal also accepted the classification of the admitted balance as unsecured for liquidation purposes and rejected the argument that delay in completion of the insolvency process enlarged the department's rights.

Conclusion: The departmental claims covered by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 were correctly treated as secured, while the claims under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 were not entitled to secured status.

Final Conclusion: The appeal did not disclose any infirmity in the impugned order, and the classification of claims between secured and unsecured categories, as well as the application of insolvency moratorium protections, was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory first charge creates security interest for insolvency purposes, but recovery or attachment actions taken after the commencement of CIRP or during liquidation are barred by the moratorium provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

---