https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759634 The Karnataka HC held that customs demands against a company under insolvency resolution process are extinguished under Section 32A of the IBC when the revenue authority fails to file claims before the Interim Resolution Professional during CIRP proceedings. The court distinguished between resolution and liquidation processes, noting that in resolution cases, the company continues as a going concern rather than being wound up. Following precedent from Gujarat HC and SC in similar matters, the court ruled that unapproved demands not included in the resolution plan cannot be pursued post-resolution. The tribunal's application of Rule 22 of 1982 Rules was deemed erroneous. Appeal allowed in favor of the assessee. en-us Mon, 30 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Oct 2024 10:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759634 The Karnataka HC held that customs demands against a company under insolvency resolution process are extinguished under Section 32A of the IBC when the revenue authority fails to file claims before the Interim Resolution Professional during CIRP proceedings. The court distinguished between resolution and liquidation processes, noting that in resolution cases, the company continues as a going concern rather than being wound up. Following precedent from Gujarat HC and SC in similar matters, the court ruled that unapproved demands not included in the resolution plan cannot be pursued post-resolution. The tribunal's application of Rule 22 of 1982 Rules was deemed erroneous. Appeal allowed in favor of the assessee. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 30 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759634