<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Clean slate principle bars pre-CIRP electricity dues and LPSC demands for fresh supply after resolution plan approval</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101155</link>
    <description>Clean slate principle bars revival of pre-CIRP electricity dues and the connected late payment surcharge after approval of a resolution plan. Where the surcharge had already arisen on unpaid electricity charges before CIRP, extinguishment of the principal pre-resolution claim also prevents indirect recovery of the related surcharge as a condition for restoring supply. Reliance on post-disconnection billing or section 56(2) concepts was misplaced because the liability had already been billed and formed part of the pre-CIRP dues. A demand for pre-CIRP surcharge as a precondition to a fresh electricity connection was therefore treated as arbitrary and without authority of law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2026 08:33:51 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2026 08:33:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=908901" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Clean slate principle bars pre-CIRP electricity dues and LPSC demands for fresh supply after resolution plan approval</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101155</link>
      <description>Clean slate principle bars revival of pre-CIRP electricity dues and the connected late payment surcharge after approval of a resolution plan. Where the surcharge had already arisen on unpaid electricity charges before CIRP, extinguishment of the principal pre-resolution claim also prevents indirect recovery of the related surcharge as a condition for restoring supply. Reliance on post-disconnection billing or section 56(2) concepts was misplaced because the liability had already been billed and formed part of the pre-CIRP dues. A demand for pre-CIRP surcharge as a precondition to a fresh electricity connection was therefore treated as arbitrary and without authority of law.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2026 08:33:51 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101155</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>