TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 650
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Assessment Year 2016-2017 dated 26th February 2021, confirming a tax liability against the petitioner (then Shop CJ Network Pvt. Ltd.). 2. The challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the Appeal Order dated 31st May 2023 passed by the respondent No. 1 - Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals)-VII, Bandra, Mumbai confirming the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under - The petitioner was formerly known as Shop CJ Network Pvt. Ltd. which operated a 24x7 home-shopping television channel under the brand name "Shop CJ". The petitioner (as Shop CJ Network Pvt. Ltd.) was subject to assessment proceedings under the provisions of the M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was paid by way of challan to respondent No. 3 (Office of Department of GST, Government of Maharashtra, Commissioner of State Tax-E-611-Mumbai) against the full and final settlement towards Rs. 27,91,64,187/-. 6. The petitioner filed a letter dated 19th May 2023 with the respondent No. 1 - the First Appellate Authority informing the authority of the NCLT's approval of the Resolution Plan and that the pending MVAT appeals be disposed of on the basis that all tax liabilities had been settled under the Plan and requesting refund of pre-deposit. 7. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal ("NCLAT", for short) dismissed the appeal of respondent No. 3 against the NCLT's rectification order by its order dated 26th July 2023, thereby affi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8V/MVAT/01.04.2016-31.03.2017/906246/FINAL STAY/3831159 dated 17.06.2021 against the part payment of Rs. 31,99,174/- which was made on 22.04.2021 at State Bank of India. The appellant filed this appeal on the following grounds:- Grounds of Appeal in brief:- (1) The Deputy Commissioner of state tax E-611 has not assessed correctly turnover of the appellant. (2) The order passed by the learned assessing authority levying interest of Rs.3,00,72,238/-under section 30 may be set aside. Hearing, Observations and Conclusion:- To decide this appeal, hearing notice was issued and served properly on the Appellant and he was called on 30.05.2023. On 22nd May 2023 appellants Insolvency professional replied v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... approval of a Resolution Plan. 11. We have perused the proposed Resolution Plan, the order dated 21st March 2023 passed by the NCLT and the rectification order dated 18th April 2023 of the NCLT. Having perused the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited (supra), in our view, in the present case, once the NCLT approved the Resolution Plan on a "clean slate" basis, all past claims or dues not forming part of the Resolution stood extinguished. In terms of Section 31 of the IBC, such approval is binding on all Stakeholders, including the tax authority, and no fresh or pending proceedings could be continued thereafter. Consequently, respondent No. 1 lacks jurisdiction to pass the impugned order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stake holders. On the date of approval of the resolution plan (or, as the case may be, the Acquisition Plan) by the NCLT, all such claims, which are not a part of such plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect of a claim, which is not part of the said plan. Further, all the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, if not part of the resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on which the NCLT grant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an on a clean slate basis, all proceedings against the petitioner stand abated and consequently, the respondents are liable to refund the said pre-deposit amounts. The issue is no more res integra and is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ruchi Soya Industries Limited and others (supra) and the judgment of this Court in Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. and another vs. Union of India and others (2023) 10 Centax 190 (Bom.), wherein this Court set aside the impugned order and directed refund of the amount of pre-deposit with applicable interest. 17. Though learned AGP was at pains to point out that the authority had the necessary jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and that the claim of MVAT Department would no....