https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404698 During liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, a State Tax authority's attempt to freeze a corporate debtor's bank account under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act was found inconsistent with the insolvency framework. Section 238 of the Code gives it overriding effect over conflicting recovery measures, so claims and recovery actions must be dealt with through the Code's distribution mechanism rather than by separate enforcement. On that basis, the liquidator was entitled to defreezing relief, and the Adjudicating Authority should not have required separate proceedings against the tax authority. en-us Thu, 25 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Mar 2021 08:17:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404698 During liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, a State Tax authority's attempt to freeze a corporate debtor's bank account under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act was found inconsistent with the insolvency framework. Section 238 of the Code gives it overriding effect over conflicting recovery measures, so claims and recovery actions must be dealt with through the Code's distribution mechanism rather than by separate enforcement. On that basis, the liquidator was entitled to defreezing relief, and the Adjudicating Authority should not have required separate proceedings against the tax authority. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 25 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404698