TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 487
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondent no. 6, notice dated 20.07.2020 (ANNEXURE-W) issued by Respondent no. 5, notice dated 18.07.2020 (ANNEXURE-P), order dated 22.01.2021 (ANNEXURE-S) and order dated 22.01.2021 (ANNEXURE-T); issued by the respective Respondents; and 2. Quash the pending proceedings against the Petitioner and refund the amount paid as pre-deposit; 3. Respondents may be restrained from raising any further demands or proceeding with any coercive steps so far as dues incurred in relation to the period prior to Transfer Date; 4. Provide directions for expeditious disposal of pending matters involving the Respondents; ...." 2. Facts in brief are as under: 2.1 The petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ultratech Cement Ltd and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of cement and allied products. Since Binani Cements was unable to pay the debt of the bank, the concerned bank had filed an before the NCLT. Vide order dated 25.07.2017, NCLT admitted the petition for initiating the CIRP process. 2.2 On 28.07.2017, a public announcement was made by the Resolution Professional (RP) inviting claims from all the creditors of the corporate debtor. The RP upon receipt of the claim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 22.1.2021, the remedy lies in filing an Appeal under Section 73 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The other submission is that since the respondents have assessed the dues by way of an order dated 22.01.2021 i.e. later in point of time to the acceptance of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Plan and consequential order passed by the NCLT dated 14.11.2018, the respondent could not have claim any dues before 14.11.2018, as the audit assessment for Binani Cement had not been initiated by the respondent authorities to enable them to claim its dues before the Resolution Professional, the petitioner is required to pay the dues assessed for the Assessment Year 2016-2017 as determined by the assessment order dated 22.1.2021. 5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it is apparent that the issue is decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd.v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd reported in (2021) 9 SCC 657. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case held that based on the provisions of the IBC, the Resolution Plan would be binding on all stakeholders after getting its seal of approval and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rocess. 20. On 28.7.2017, RP made a public announcement inviting claims from all the creditors of the Corporate Debtor, as is required under Section 15 of I&B Code. The last date for submission of claims was 8.8.2017. RP upon receipt of the claims maintained a list of creditors alongside the amount claimed by them and the security interest. RP also invited EOI. In response, various entities including the present appellant submitted their EOI as well as resolution plans. CoC in its meeting dated 28.5.2018, unanimously approved the Resolution Plan submitted by the present appellant. Pursuant to the approval by CoC, NCLAT granted approval to the Resolution Plan of appellant vide order dated 14.11.2018. The said order came to be challenged before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 10998/2018, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.11.2018. 21. On 13.12.2018, the name of the Corporate Debtor was changed to UltraTech Nathdwara Cement Limited from Binani Cement Limited and the management of the Corporate Debtor was taken over by Ultratech Cement Limited w.e.f. 20.11.2018. Thereafter, the appellant addressed various communications to the tax authorities, who are respondents ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the approval of the Resolution Plan by NCLT has been dealt with by the Assessing Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority and therefore, it was in the fitness of things that the appellant should avail of the alternative remedy of filing a second appeal available under the VAT Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the present appeal. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1177 OF 2020 M/ S MONNET ISPAT & ENERGY LIMITED AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF ODISHA AND ANOTHER 26. The petitioner Company is a Corporate Debtor in respect of which CIRP proceedings commenced in July 2017 and ended in July 2018, when NCLT approved the Resolution Plan submitted by a Consortium of Aion Investment Private Limited and JSW Steel Limited ("Aion JSW" for short). Prior to approval by NCLT, CoC had granted approval to the said Resolution Plan by a voting majority of 98.97%. It is the contention of the petitioner, that in accordance with the provisions of I&B Code, RP had made a public announcement thereby, inviting claims from Creditors. Contending, that the demand notices issued by the respondents for recovery of Service Tax towards Royalty, District Mineral Foundation ("DMF" for short) a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing on behalf of the appellant UltraTech Nathdwara Cement Limited submitted, that a conjoint reading of subsection (10) of Section 3 and subsections (20) and (21) of Section 5 would show, that even if there was no amendment to Section 31 of I&B Code by the 2019 Amendment, still the Central Government and any State Government or the local authorities were bound by the same and any statutory dues owed to them by the Corporate Debtor, which were not included in the resolution plan, shall stand extinguished. 40. Dr. Singhvi submitted, that the 2019 Amendment, which amends Section 31 is clarificatory in nature and only declares and clarifies the position of law, which has already been in existence i.e. the Central Government, any State Government and local authorities are bound by the CIRP. He submitted, that this Court in the cases of State Bank of India vs. V. Ramakrishnan and Another and B.K. Educational Services Private Limited v. Parag Gupta and Associates has held the amendment to certain provisions of the I&B Code to be clarificatory in nature. 41. The learned Senior Counsel submitted, that upon perusal of the provisions of the I&B Code, it is clear, that once NCLT grant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., in response to the public notices issued by RP." 5.2 Paras 64 and 65 read as under: "64. It could thus be seen, that the legislature has given paramount importance to the commercial wisdom of CoC and the scope of judicial review by Adjudicating Authority is limited to the extent provided under Section 31 of I&B Code and of the Appellate Authority is limited to the extent provided under subsection (3) of Section 61 of the I&B Code, is no more res integra. 65. Bare reading of Section 31 of the I&B Code would also make it abundantly clear, that once the resolution plan is approved by the Adjudicating Authority, after it is satisfied, that the resolution plan as approved by CoC meets the requirements as referred to in subsection (2) of Section 30, it shall be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, guarantors and other stakeholders. Such a provision is necessitated since one of the dominant purposes of the I&B Code is, revival of the Corporate Debtor and to make it a running concern." 5.3 Considering the amendment to Section 31 of the IBC and referring to the speech of the Finance Minister, the Supreme Court in Paras 79 and 80 observed as under: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n plan. She has categorically stated, that she would want all the Hon'ble Members to recognize this message and communicate further that I&B Code gives that comfort to all new bidders. They need not be scared that the taxman will come after them for the faults of the earlier promoters. She further states, that once the resolution plan is accepted, the earlier promoters will be dealt with as individuals for their criminality but not the new bidder who is trying to restore the company." 5.4 In light of the above, the Supreme Court in Para 84 held as under: "84. It is clear, that the mischief, which was noticed prior to amendment of Section 31 of I&B Code was, that though the legislative intent was to extinguish all such debts owed to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, including the tax authorities once an approval was granted to the resolution plan by NCLT; on account of there being some ambiguity, the State/Central Government authorities continued with the proceedings in respect of the debts owed to them. In order to remedy the said mischief, the legislature thought it appropriate to clarify the position, that once such a resolution plan was appr....