TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1.1 Whether, for the purposes of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the effective date of approval of the resolution plan for the corporate debtor is 24 July 2019 or 4 September 2019.
1.2 Whether statutory tax demands for periods prior to the effective date of approval of the resolution plan could validly be raised against the corporate debtor after such approval, in light of the "clean slate" principle and binding effect of an approved resolution plan.
1.3 Consequentially, whether the impugned adjudication order raising demands for periods prior to the effective date of the resolution plan is liable to be set aside, with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings only for the post-approval period, and how limitation is to be computed for any such fresh proceedings.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Effective date of approval of the resolution plan (24 July 2019 vs 4 September 2019)
Legal framework (as discussed)
2.1 The Court referred to Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which mandates that once the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the resolution plan meets the statutory requirements, it shall "by order approve the resolution plan", which upon such approval becomes binding on the corporate debtor and all specified stakeholders, including governmental authorities.
Interpretation and reasoning
2.2 The Court examined the NCLT order dated 24 July 2019 and noted that:
(a) The resolution plan was stated to be approved "with modifications" and was described as approved "subject to" submission of an additional affidavit accepting modifications and providing further information (paras 93, 97, 98).
(b) Critical aspects such as "exact source of funds" for the proposed investment amount and detailed break-up of CIRP cost, as well as remuneration of the monitoring agent, were specifically kept pending and directions were issued to bridge gaps in information and to file further details before the next listing (paras 95, 96, 97).
(c) The order itself fixed a subsequent date for filing the additional affidavit "regarding acceptance of the modifications in the Resolution Plan and submitting the other informations as per directions above".
2.3 The Court contrasted this with the subsequent NCLT order dated 4 September 2019, wherein it was recorded that every eventuality had been discussed in the approved resolution plan and, "in the circumstances, we hereby approve the resolution plan", directing immediate communication of the order to the Resolution Professional, Resolution Applicant, Corporate Debtor and IBBI.
2.4 The Court also relied on the view already taken by a Division Bench of another High Court, in proceedings concerning the same corporate debtor and the same resolution plan, which had treated 4 September 2019 as the date of approval of the resolution plan and applied the consequences under insolvency law on that basis.
2.5 While the respondent relied on the description of the 24 July 2019 order as an order under Section 31(1), IBBI website entries, and certain NCLAT orders that referred to 24 July 2019 as the approval date, the Court preferred to follow the substantive language of the NCLT orders themselves and the interpretation already adopted by coordinate Benches in matters involving the same parties and plan.
Conclusion
2.6 The Court held that the "final approval" of the resolution plan is to be taken as 4 September 2019, being the date on which the plan stood finally and unconditionally approved and the new management came into control of the company.
Issue 2 - Validity of post-resolution statutory tax demands for pre-approval periods in light of the "clean slate" effect of the resolution plan
Legal framework (as discussed)
2.7 The Court noted the binding effect of an approved resolution plan under Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, including upon governmental authorities to whom statutory dues are owed.
2.8 The Court cited the Supreme Court's enunciation that:
(a) Once a resolution plan is duly approved under Section 31(1), the claims provided in the plan stand frozen and are binding on all stakeholders, including Central and State Governments and local authorities.
(b) All claims not forming part of the approved resolution plan stand extinguished on the date of approval, and no person is entitled to initiate or continue proceedings in respect of such excluded claims.
(c) Statutory dues owed to governmental authorities, if not part of the resolution plan, stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date of approval can be continued.
2.9 The Court also referred to decisions of other High Courts dealing with the same corporate debtor, where:
(a) Composite tax demands covering periods both prior to and after the effective date of the resolution plan had been set aside; and
(b) Authorities were permitted to issue fresh notices only for the period after approval of the resolution plan, postulating that claims prior to that date stand governed and extinguished by the plan.
Interpretation and reasoning
2.10 The Court accepted the petitioner's contention that, since the takeover occurred pursuant to an approved resolution plan on a "going concern" and "clean slate basis", no fresh demand could be raised for any period prior to the effective date of approval of the resolution plan, as such claims had to be dealt with within the insolvency process and the plan.
2.11 Having determined that 4 September 2019 is the relevant approval date, the Court reasoned that:
(a) Any statutory dues relating to periods prior to 4 September 2019, if not incorporated in the resolution plan, stood extinguished on that date.
(b) Consistent with the binding precedents and coordinate High Court decisions involving the same company and plan, tax authorities cannot raise or continue demands for the pre-approval period after that date.
Conclusion
2.12 The Court concluded that no statutory tax demands could be validly raised or sustained for any period prior to 4 September 2019, those claims being governed by and subsumed in the approved resolution plan, with all non-included claims extinguished.
Issue 3 - Consequences for the impugned order, scope for fresh proceedings for post-approval period, and computation of limitation
Interpretation and reasoning
2.13 The impugned adjudication order raised demands for a period extending to years prior to the resolution plan's effective approval date. Given the finding that pre-4 September 2019 dues could not be the subject of fresh demands, the Court held that the impugned order, to the extent it covers periods prior to 4 September 2019, could not stand.
2.14 Following the approach of other High Courts in similar matters concerning the same petitioner, the Court considered it appropriate to permit the tax authorities to initiate fresh proceedings confined strictly to the period after 4 September 2019, to be adjudicated in accordance with law.
2.15 Since the pendency of the writ petition could affect the limitation period for issuance of a fresh show cause notice, the Court directed that the period during which the writ petition remained pending be excluded for the purpose of computing limitation.
2.16 To avoid future disputes on limitation, the Court specified that if any fresh show cause notice is issued by 15 February 2026, it shall be deemed to be within the period of limitation.
Conclusions
2.17 The impugned order raising demands for any period prior to 4 September 2019 was set aside.
2.18 The respondent authority was granted liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice for the period after 4 September 2019 only, and to decide such notice in accordance with law.
2.19 The period during which the writ petition remained pending stands excluded for limitation purposes, and any fresh show cause notice issued by 15 February 2026 shall be treated as issued within limitation.
TaxTMI 
