2025 (1) TMI 62 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Corporate debtor's entry tax dues extinguished after resolution plan approval under IBC Sections 31 and 238

McNally Bharat Engineering Company Ltd., Versus Commercial Taxes Officers, State Bank Of India.

The Rajasthan HC held that recovery of entry tax dues by the Commercial Taxes Department from a corporate debtor was invalid following approval of a ... Recovery of Tax dues - Effect of CIRP Proceedings under IBC - Challenge to action of respondents, directing the respondent No. 2 to recover the outstanding amount from its Bank account - non-payment of the entry tax for the goods purchased by the petitioner from outside the State of Rajasthan - HELD THAT:- As per Sections 31 and 238 of the IBC, the approved Resolution Plan has been made binding on the Corporate Debtors - McNally Bharat Engineering Company Ltd., its employees, members, creditors, guarantors including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority and other stakeholders involved in the Resolution Plan, to whom a debt in respect of payment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force, is owed. Section 238 of the IBC provides that the Code will prevail in case of inconsistency between two laws. This court also examined similar controversy in the case of Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement Ltd. [2020 (4) TMI 269 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] and held that any demands made by the Statutory Creditor, i.e. Commercial Taxes Department, for the period prior to the effective date stand extinguished with the approval of the Resolution Plan by the NCLT - Law is well-settled that with the finalization of insolvency resolution plan and the approval thereof by the NCLT, all dues of creditors, Corporate, Statutory and others stand extinguished and no demand can be raised for the period prior to the specified date. Conclusion - Law is well-settled that with the finalization of insolvency resolution plan and the approval thereof by the NCLT, all dues of creditors, Corporate, Statutory and others stand extinguished and no demand can be raised for the period prior to the specified date. The impugned communication/notice dated 17.07.2019 is invalid - Petition allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:Whether the notice/communication dated 17.07.2019 issued by the respondent-Department for recovery of outstanding entry tax from the petitioner-company's bank account is legally tenable after the approval of the Resolution Plan by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).Whether the approval of the Resolution Plan under Section 31 of the IBC extinguishes all tax dues and demands for the period prior to the effective date of the plan.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Legality of the Recovery Notice Post-Resolution Plan ApprovalRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The legal framework involves the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, specifically Section 31, which makes the approved resolution plan binding on all stakeholders, including government authorities. Precedents include the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. and the Rajasthan High Court's own judgment in Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement Ltd.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court interpreted Section 31 of the IBC to mean that once a resolution plan is approved by the NCLT, it is binding on all creditors, including statutory creditors such as tax authorities. The court emphasized that the IBC takes precedence over other laws due to Section 238, which provides for the Code's overriding effect in case of inconsistencies.Key Evidence and Findings: The key evidence was the NCLT's order approving the resolution plan, which explicitly stated that all dues prior to the effective date were settled. The court found that the demands made by the respondent-Department were for periods before the resolution plan's approval.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the provisions of the IBC to the facts, concluding that the respondent's actions to recover dues were inconsistent with the binding nature of the approved resolution plan.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent's argument that the State Government was exempt from the binding effect was refuted by the court, citing the amended Section 31 and the Supreme Court's interpretation in Essar Steel.Conclusions: The court concluded that the notice/communication for recovery was invalid as it contravened the binding effect of the resolution plan under the IBC.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: 'Law is well-settled that with the finalization of insolvency resolution plan and the approval thereof by the NCLT, all dues of creditors, Corporate, Statutory and others stand extinguished and no demand can be raised for the period prior to the specified date.'Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the principle that an approved resolution plan under the IBC extinguishes all pre-plan liabilities and demands, including those from statutory creditors.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court determined that the impugned communication/notice dated 17.07.2019 is invalid and quashed it, allowing the writ petitions.