GST demand challenge stayed where resolution-plan principles were invoked to exclude undisclosed pre-resolution dues.

A writ petition challenged an ex parte GST demand order, the consequential recovery action, and notifications extending the limitation period for tax determination. The petitioner argued that, under the approved resolution plan and the governing insolvency principle, undisclosed pre-resolution claims not included in the plan do not survive against the resolution applicant. Relying on the cited Supreme Court position and the surrounding legal framework, the High Court granted interim protection and stayed the impugned order during pendency of the petition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned ex parte demand order and consequential recovery action under the GST law should be stayed during the pendency of the writ petition in view of the approved resolution plan and the legal position that undisclosed pre-resolution dues stand extinguished.

Analysis: The writ petition challenged the ex parte order, demand notice, and the notifications extending the limitation period for determination of tax. The petitioner relied on the effect of the sanctioned resolution plan and the principle that claims not forming part of the plan do not survive against a successful resolution applicant. In light of the cited Supreme Court decision and the surrounding legal position, the impugned order was stayed pending further proceedings.

Outcome: Interim protection was granted by staying the impugned order during the pendency of the writ petition.

---