GST demand for period before NCLT resolution approval extinguished; tax authority's FY2021 Order-in-Original quashed under insolvency framework

The HC allowed the petition and quashed the tax authority's Order-in-Original dated 26 Feb 2025 for FY 2021, holding that demands for periods prior to the NCLT's approval of the resolution plan (11 Aug 2023) are extinguished. The court applied the principle that claims not included in an approved resolution plan cannot be initiated or continued, and therefore the GST demand raised for the pre-approval period could not be sustained. The impugned order was set aside.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether statutory tax demands raised under the GST Act for periods prior to approval of a resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) survive or stand extinguished upon approval of the resolution plan.

2. Whether a tax authority could validly initiate or continue proceedings, and issue an order of demand, in respect of statutory dues for the pre-CIRP period after the resolution plan has been approved.

3. The scope of the Adjudicating Authority's powers under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to grant reliefs, waivers or concessions in a resolution plan, and the extent to which other governmental authorities are bound or affected.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Extinguishment of pre-approval statutory tax claims upon approval of a resolution plan

Legal framework: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code provides that once a resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 31, claims provided in the resolution plan bind the corporate debtor and its creditors. The 2019 amendment to Section 31 has been treated as clarificatory and declaratory.

Precedent treatment: The Court relied on the authoritative holding in the Supreme Court decision (Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.) that upon approval of a resolution plan, claims not part of the plan stand extinguished; further, all dues including statutory dues owed to Central/State/Local authorities if not part of the plan shall stand extinguished for the period prior to approval. The Tribunal also relied on NCLT observations and a High Court decision interpreting the same principle.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted the NCLT's finding that the resolution plan, as approved, freezes and extinguishes claims which are not included in the plan for periods prior to the approval date. The reasoning is that the statutory scheme and the cited precedents establish that approval under Section 31 precludes fresh demands or continuation of proceedings for pre-approval dues which are not part of the plan. The Court treated the rule as applicable to statutory demands under the GST Act for the financial year preceding approval.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The binding effect of an approved resolution plan results in extinguishment of pre-approval statutory claims not included in the plan; therefore such claims cannot be pursued post-approval. Obs. - Ancillary observations about the nature of the 2019 amendment being clarificatory were drawn from precedent but functioned to support the ratio.

Conclusion: Statutory tax claims for the period prior to the date of approval of the resolution plan that are not included in the plan are extinguished and cannot be the basis for fresh demand or continued proceedings.

Issue 2: Validity of tax authority proceedings and issuance of demand post-approval for pre-CIRP period

Legal framework: The GST Act empowers tax authorities to assess and demand taxes, but such powers must yield to the statutory regime of insolvency as it applies to claims and their treatment post-approval of a resolution plan under the IBC.

Precedent treatment: Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's pronouncement that proceedings in respect of dues for the period prior to the date of approval under Section 31 cannot be continued where such dues are not part of the resolution plan.

Interpretation and reasoning: Applying the principle of extinguishment, the Court held that the tax authority's issuance of a notice and the subsequent Order-in-Original raising demand for the financial year prior to the NCLT approval was impermissible. The Tribunal's reasoning follows directly from the binding effect ascribed to an approved resolution plan - permitting tax proceedings would undermine the finality of the plan and the statutory objectives of the Code.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A tax authority cannot validly initiate or continue proceedings, nor issue demands, for pre-approval periods where the resolution plan has extinguished such claims. Obiter - None material beyond explanation of the direct application of precedent.

Conclusion: The Order-in-Original imposing GST demand for the pre-approval period was invalid and unsustainable; therefore it must be quashed.

Issue 3: Scope of Adjudicating Authority's powers and interplay with other governmental authorities

Legal framework: The Adjudicating Authority under the IBC may grant reliefs, waivers and concessions insofar as they fall within the powers conferred by the Code and the Companies Act; reliefs that fall within the domain of other government departments/authorities remain within the competence of those authorities and are to be dealt with by them.

Precedent treatment: The NCLT's own order was cited for distinguishing which reliefs lie within the Adjudicating Authority's remit and which do not. The Court relied on that delineation and the established principle that other competent authorities may consider granting reliefs keeping in view the spirit of the Code.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted the NCLT's articulation that while certain waivers can be granted by the Adjudicating Authority to achieve the objectives of the Code, many reliefs relate to separate statutory regimes and must be addressed by the respective authorities. This separate competence, however, does not enable those authorities to revive claims for pre-approval periods extinguished by an approved resolution plan.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The Adjudicating Authority's power to grant specific reliefs under the Code is confined to matters within the Code/Companies Act; authorities external to the IBC retain jurisdiction over their own statutory reliefs but must respect the extinguishment effect of an approved resolution plan. Obiter - Guidance that other authorities "may consider" granting reliefs in the spirit of the Code is advisory.

Conclusion: The NCLT correctly delineated the scope of its powers; other governmental authorities retain their domain but cannot, consistently with the IBC and relevant precedent, pursue or revive extinguished pre-approval claims.

Final Court Conclusion (application of issues 1-3)

Applying the above principles, the Court concluded that the tax demand for the financial year prior to the approval of the resolution plan was barred by the extinguishment doctrine following approval under Section 31. Consequently, the impugned demand order was quashed and set aside. The rule was made absolute without costs.

---