TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1635
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tution of India, wherein the writ-petitioner has sought the following prayers along with certain ancillary reliefs: "(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI or any other appropriate writ for quashing the Impugned Ex- Parte Order dated 29.08.2024 passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 as well as the Impugned Summary of the Order bearing Reference No: ZD0908243068921 issued in Forum GST DRC - 07 dated 29.08.2024 and Ex-Parte Demand Notice dated 29.08.2024 bearing Reference No: ZD0908243068921 issued under Section 73 of the CGST/ UPGST Act, 2017 by the Respondent No. 6 against the Petitioner relating to financial year 2019-2020. (collectively annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the present writ ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt Year 2019-20 was passed by the respondent no.6 on 29.08.2024. On 19.07.2023, the Resolution Plan was approved by the NCLT. 4. Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, to buttress his argument that once the Resolution Plan has been approved by the NCLT, the G.S.T. Department cannot create further dues by way of passing orders, has relied upon the following judgments, viz. (i) Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons (P) Ltd. Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., reported in [SC] [2021] 126 Taxmann.com 132/166 SCL 237 (SC), (ii) N.S. Papers Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others [Writ Tax No.408 of 2021, decided on December 11, 2024], (iii) Vaibhav Goyal and another Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another [C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... IBC proceedings holds no water. 13. Even assuming that the department was not informed about the proceedings, the law is very clear as expounded in the judgments cited above. The resolution applicant cannot be saddled with new claims once a resolution plan has been approved. 14. The argument that an assessment that has been kept pending for a prior period and is quantified subsequent to the approval of the Resolution Plan is an argument in sophistry. If this argument is accepted then all authorities would be in a position to keep assessment/re-assessment pending till completion of the Resolution Plan, and thereafter, culminate the same and saddle the successful Resolution Applicant with an unknown burden. Such an action cannot be count....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 2013-14 were not part of the approved Resolution Plan. Therefore, in view of sub-section (1) of Section 31, as interpreted by this Court in the above decision, the dues of the first respondent owed by the CD for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 stand extinguished. ... 12. Once the Resolution Plan is approved by the NCLT, no belated claim can be included therein that was not made earlier. If such demands are taken into consideration, the appellants will not be in a position to recommence the business of the CD on a clean slate. On this aspect, we may note what is held in paragraph 107 of the decision of this Court in the case of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. [Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2022]. Paragraph 107 reads ....