9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 487 - HC - Insolvency and BankruptcyValidity of impugned assessment orders, assessment notices and demand notice - resolution plan is in place - case of petitioner is that in terms of the Resolution Plan, the claims of all the creditors including statutory operational creditors would stand extinguished and discharged upon the payment of the resolution plan - HELD THAT - It is apparent that the issue is decided by the Supreme Court in the case of GHANASHYAM MISHRA AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY VERSUS EDELWEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH THE DIRECTOR ORS. 2021 (4) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT . 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 therefore no surprise claims should be flung on the successful resolution applicant as the dominant purpose is to start with with a fresh slate. The operational creditors or the other stakeholders squarely cover the Central Government, any State Government or any local authorities, including tax authorities. As per the position of law declared in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra, in case of all such debts owed to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority including tax authority, once a resolution plan is approved all such claims etc which were not a part of the resolution process shall stand extinguished. The impugned assessment orders, assessment notices and demand notices dated 14.2.2019, 16.2.2019, 20.07.2020, 18.07.2020 and orders dated 22.1.2021 are quashed and set aside - petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of impugned assessment orders, assessment notices, and demand notices. 2. Extinguishment of claims of creditors including statutory operational creditors post-approval of the Resolution Plan. 3. Jurisdiction and remedy under Section 73 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. 4. Binding nature of the Resolution Plan on all stakeholders including government authorities. Summary: Issue 1: Validity of Impugned Assessment Orders, Notices, and Demand Notices The petitioner sought to quash various assessment orders, assessment notices, and demand notices issued by the respondents. The petitioner argued that these were invalid once the Resolution Plan was in place, which provided exemption for operational creditors like the respondents. The Gujarat High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the impugned assessment orders, assessment notices, and demand notices dated 14.2.2019, 16.2.2019, 20.07.2020, 18.07.2020, and orders dated 22.1.2021. Issue 2: Extinguishment of Claims Post-Approval of the Resolution Plan The petitioner, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ultratech Cement Ltd, argued that all claims of creditors, including statutory operational creditors, would stand extinguished and discharged upon the approval of the Resolution Plan. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., which held that the Resolution Plan, once approved, binds all stakeholders, including government authorities, and extinguishes all claims not included in the plan. The court reiterated that no surprise claims should be flung on the successful resolution applicant. Issue 3: Jurisdiction and Remedy under Section 73 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 The respondents argued that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the assessment order dated 22.1.2021, the remedy lay in filing an appeal under Section 73 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003. However, the court found that the claims were untenable and bad in law, as they were against the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Issue 4: Binding Nature of the Resolution Plan on All Stakeholders The court emphasized that the Resolution Plan, once approved by the Adjudicating Authority, binds all stakeholders, including the Central Government, State Government, and local authorities. The court referred to the legislative intent and the Finance Minister's speech, which clarified that the IBC would prevail in case of inconsistency between laws and that no further claims could be made by the government post-approval of the Resolution Plan. Conclusion: The Gujarat High Court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned assessment orders, assessment notices, and demand notices. The court ruled that all claims not included in the Resolution Plan stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of such claims could be continued. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
|
