2025 (6) TMI 1729 - AT - Service Tax

Resolution Plan approval under Section 31(1) IBC extinguishes excluded claims, appeals dismissed following Ghanashyam Mishra precedent

M/s. Aircel Limited Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Coimbatore

The Tribunal dismissed appeals challenging demands after the NCLT approved a Resolution Plan under Section 31(1) of the IBC. Following the SC precedent in ... Survival or abatement of appeal - approval of Resolution Plan - seeking disposal of Appeals after hearing the parties since substantial demands have been raised in the impugned orders - HELD THAT:- Now that the Resolution Plan stands accepted which is undisputed by both the parties, the present appeals would not survive as ruled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. & Ors. [2021 (4) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT] which decision has been followed by various CESTAT Benches across India. Ld. Advocate Ms. Shwetha Vasudevan would place reliance on a latest decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Patanjali Foods Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore [2024 (10) TMI 233 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and would pray to hold the abatement of ‘demands’ and not ‘appeals’ as directed in the said order of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. Conclusion - Thus, once the Resolution Plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31 (1) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) then ‘no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim which is not part of the resolution plan’. That means even the present proceedings cannot be continued as held in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Appeal closed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Tribunal were:Whether the appeals challenging demands raised in the impugned orders survive after the approval of the Resolution Plan by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).Whether the claims or demands not included in the approved Resolution Plan can be pursued or continued after such approval.The effect of the Resolution Professional seeking to withdraw and the appointment of a new Resolution Professional on the finality of the Resolution Plan and the continuation of appeals.The applicability and interpretation of the Supreme Court's ruling in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. & Ors., and the recent Karnataka High Court decision in Patanjali Foods Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, concerning the abatement of demands or appeals post-approval of a Resolution Plan.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Survival of Appeals after Approval of Resolution Plan by NCLTRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Tribunal relied heavily on Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which governs the approval of Resolution Plans by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT). The key precedent was the Supreme Court judgment in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. & Ors., which clarified the finality of claims upon approval of a Resolution Plan.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that once the Resolution Plan is approved by the NCLT under Section 31(1), all claims not included in the plan stand extinguished and no proceedings can be initiated or continued in respect of such claims. This interpretation was directly drawn from the Supreme Court's detailed analysis in paragraph 95 of the judgment, where it was held that the claims are 'frozen' and binding on all stakeholders, including government authorities.Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal observed that the approval of the Resolution Plan by the NCLT was undisputed by both parties, establishing the finality of the plan. The appellant's contention that the appeals should be treated as abated was supported by this fact.Application of law to facts: Applying the Supreme Court's ruling, the Tribunal concluded that since the Resolution Plan was approved, the demands raised in the impugned orders could not survive. Consequently, the appeals challenging those demands could not be continued.Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent argued that the Resolution Professional had sought to withdraw and filed an appeal seeking appointment of another Resolution Professional, thus indicating no finality. However, the Tribunal did not find this sufficient to negate the effect of the Resolution Plan's approval. The finality under Section 31(1) was held to override such procedural developments.Conclusions: The Tribunal held that the appeals do not survive post-approval of the Resolution Plan and must be dismissed accordingly.Issue 2: Effect of Claims Not Included in the Resolution PlanRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Supreme Court's ruling in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. clarified that claims not part of the approved Resolution Plan stand extinguished. The 2019 amendment to Section 31 of the IBC was held to be clarificatory and declaratory, effective retrospectively.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that statutory dues owed to the Central Government, State Government, or local authorities, if not included in the Resolution Plan, cannot be pursued after approval. This principle was reiterated from the Supreme Court's judgment, which stated that 'no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan.'Key evidence and findings: The appellant relied on a recent Karnataka High Court decision which held that demands abate but not appeals. However, the Tribunal found the Supreme Court's ruling binding and authoritative on the point.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied this principle to the facts, observing that since the demands were not part of the approved Resolution Plan, they stood extinguished and could not be pursued in the current appeals.Treatment of competing arguments: The appellant's reliance on the Karnataka High Court decision was noted but not accepted as it conflicted with the Supreme Court's binding precedent.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that statutory and other claims not included in the Resolution Plan are extinguished and cannot be pursued.Issue 3: Impact of the Resolution Professional's Withdrawal and Appointment of Another ProfessionalRelevant legal framework and precedents: The IBC and related procedural rules govern the appointment and withdrawal of Resolution Professionals. However, the finality of the Resolution Plan under Section 31(1) remains paramount.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal acknowledged the respondent's contention regarding the Resolution Professional's withdrawal and appeal for appointment of another professional. However, it held that such procedural developments do not affect the finality of the Resolution Plan once approved by the NCLT.Key evidence and findings: The Resolution Plan's approval was undisputed and operative, rendering the procedural issues regarding the Resolution Professional irrelevant to the survival of the appeals.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the principle that the approval of the Resolution Plan extinguishes claims and bars proceedings, regardless of subsequent procedural motions concerning the Resolution Professional.Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that the appeals should be heard due to the Resolution Professional's withdrawal, emphasizing the binding effect of the approved plan.Conclusions: The Tribunal held that the Resolution Professional's withdrawal does not revive or sustain the appeals.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'Once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under subsection (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, and State Government or