TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 886
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders (Annexure No.1) (Colly). (ii)To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner qua the impugned orders and/or qua any subsequent demands in this regard against the petitioner. 3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that one M/s Bhushan Steel Limited was an assessee, registered under U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 2008") for the Assessment Year 2016-17. Annual return in terms of the provisions of Section 24 of the Act read with Rules 45(7) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the Committee of Creditors on 03.02.2018. It was approved by the Committee of Creditors under the IBC on 20.03.2018. The NCLT approved the plan with some modification on 15.05.2018 which is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner to be the effective date under the IBC. Copy of the order of NCLT dated 15.05.2018 approving the Resolution Plan of the petitioner has been filed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Paragraph Nos. 81, 82 and 83 of order of the NCLT dated 15.05.2018 i.e. operative portion of the order, are reproduced below:- 81. In view of the above we accept and approve the CoC approved resolution plan of HI Resolution Applicant-TSL. We also approve the appointment of monitoring agency from the date of the approval of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthorities/Government Authorities and it is needless to say that their applications would be duly considered in accordance with law. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the claim concerning reliefs and concession nor any part of this order shall be understood in that spirit. (ii) CA No. 186 (PB)/2018 filed by Larsen & Turbo Limited is dismissed with cost of Rs. 1/- lakh. The cost be deposited in the account of Corporate Debtor. (iii) CA No. 217(PB)/2018 filed by Bhushan Employees is also dismissed with cost of Rs. 1/- lakh to be paid by Mr. Rahul Sengupta personally. The cost be deposited in the account of Cooperative Debtor. (iv) The objection raised by the BEL are rejected and it is held that the claim made ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,372,903,758 7. It appears that during course of assessment proceeding for the assessment year 2016-17 in the matter of M/s Bhushan Limited, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee. On behalf of the assessee, the petitioner i.e. M/s Tata Steel B.S.L. Limited appeared in the assessment proceedings. Petitioner submitted a reply dated 16.03.2020. In paragraph no.1 of the reply dated 16.03.2020 submitted before the respondent no.2, the petitioner has stated as under:- "Prior to adverting to the response to the notice, it is pertinent to mention herein that the name of M/s Bhushan Steel Limited has been changed to M/s Tata Steel BSL Limited (herein after called "the Noticee") from November, 27, 2018. Your good office is thus requested ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1478) (Paras-42, 43 and 88). (iii) The amendment made in Section 31 of the IBC 2016 by Act 26 of 2019, is clarificatory in nature. Even if the unamended Section 31 is applied to the facts of the present case, still the petitioner shall be entitled to the protection against the dues arising from the impugned assessment orders. 11. Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned Special Counsel for the State-respondent submits as under:- (i) Section 30(2)(e) of the IBC 2015 provides that "the resolution professional shall examine each resolution plan received by him to confirm that each resolution plan does not contravene any of the provisions of the law for the time being in force. Section 77 of the U.P. VAT Act provides that "Notwithstanding anything to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d and are liable to be recovered from the assets of M/s Bhushan Steel Ltd./ petitioner. (iii) Section 31 of the IBC is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case and also in view of the provisions of Section 77 and Section 43 of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India vs. State of Kerla and others, 2009 NTN Vol.39 149 (Paras- 24, 36, 39 and 48). (iv) The liability created under the impugned assessment order is subsequent to the effective date, i.e. 15.05.2018 when NCLT approved the Resolution Plan. Therefore, the impugned assessment order creating demand of indirect tax in respect of the Assessment year 2016-17 is not covered under the approv....