https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759620 Karnataka HC held that revenue's tax demand against a company undergoing CIRP was extinguished when revenue failed to file claims before the IRP during the insolvency process. The court ruled that since the resolution plan was approved and new management took control, any pre-existing liabilities not included in the resolution plan stood extinguished under Sections 31 and 32A of IBC. The court distinguished between resolution and liquidation processes, noting that Rule 22 of 1982 Rules regarding abatement upon winding up was inapplicable where resolution plan was approved rather than liquidation ordered. en-us Mon, 30 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Oct 2024 15:27:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759620 Karnataka HC held that revenue's tax demand against a company undergoing CIRP was extinguished when revenue failed to file claims before the IRP during the insolvency process. The court ruled that since the resolution plan was approved and new management took control, any pre-existing liabilities not included in the resolution plan stood extinguished under Sections 31 and 32A of IBC. The court distinguished between resolution and liquidation processes, noting that Rule 22 of 1982 Rules regarding abatement upon winding up was inapplicable where resolution plan was approved rather than liquidation ordered. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 30 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759620