TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 886
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts 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 as 'the Rules, 2008") was to be filed by 31.10.2017 so as to enable the Assessing Authority to make assessment for the Assessment Year 2016-17 under the relevant provisions of the Act, 2008. However, before the annual return could be filed by M/s Bhushan Steel Limited, it appears that certain claim under Section 7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the IBC") was filed by the State Bank of India before the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (in short 'NCLT') against the aforesaid M/s Bhushan Steel Limited. 4. It appears that a public pronouncement under the order of the NCLT was made by the Insolvency Resolution Professional (in short "IRP") on 26.07.2017. It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid public pronouncement dated 26.07.2017 made by the IRP, the respondent no.2 i.e. Joint Comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ept the Resolution Plan. 83. As a sequel to the above discussion we pass following directions:- (i) C.A. No. 244 (PB_/2018- The application filed by the Resolution Professional for accepting the resolution plan approved by the CoC submitted by Resolution Applicant-TSL, is accepted and it is clarified that the relief and concession set forth in Annexure-8 must abide by the directions issued in the preceding paras. The Monitoring Agency and the Resolution Applicant-TSL may file appropriate applications before the Public Authorities/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 acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Your good office is thus requested that all and any further communication/correspondence may be addresses to Tata Steel BSL Limited". 8. Petitioner submitted a detailed reply and participated in the assessment proceedings. Thereafter, Assessing Authority passed the impugned assessment order dated 29.10.2020 relating to Assessment Year 2016-17, under the U.P. VAT Act, Central Sales Tax Act and the U.P. Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 2007. The aforesaid Assessment Orders were accompanied by demand notices issued by the Assessing Authority in terms of provisions of the Act, 2008 and Rules framed thereunder. 9. Aggrieved with the Assessment Orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 10. Sri Navin Sinha learned Senior Advocate submitted as under:- (i) In view of the provisions of Section 31 of the IBC 2016, no demand can be recovered from the petitioner in respect of dues against M/s Bhushan Limited relating for the Assessment Year 2016- 17. (ii) The demands created under the Assessment Orders in question, forms part of tax which is part of the Resolution Plan. Therefore, it cannot be recovered from the petitioner moreso in view....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provisions of subsection 14 of section 21, deposit the entire amount so realised in the manner and within the period prescribed under section 24. Therefore, the amount of indirect taxes representing the impugned demand cannot be withheld 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 approved Resolution Plan. (vi) Provision of Section 31 of the IBC as it stood at the time of passing of the order by the NCLT, i.e. 15.05.2018, approving the Resolution Plan does not grant any pro....