9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years 2006-07, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. Thus, it cannot be denied that the respondent authorities were not aware about the pending liquidation proceedings. Further, from record it appears that objections were not raised by the respondent authorities against approval of the plan. Since, respondent did not object to approval of the plan, question of respondent not being heard would not arise. No application was filed before NCLT in the pending proceedings by the State authorities. In view of settled principle of law that once the resolution plan is approved, the claim, if any, stands extinguished and no claim can be made by any entity including the State Tax Authority, it is deemed appropriate to quash and set aside the demand notice da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Resolution Process ( CIRP ) against the petitioner under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short IBC, 2016 ). 4.3 Pursuant thereto, on 02.11.2018, the NCLT admitted the petition, commenced CIRP proceedings against the petitioner and declared moratorium. 4.4 During the CIRP process, several claims were made by different financial creditors and operational creditors. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, an Operational Creditor, lodged a claim of Rs. 38,86,63,983/- for its dues under the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 for the assessment years 2006-07, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. The claims were admitted by the Resolution Professional by email dated 26.8.2019. 4.5 Ultimately, an order dated 19.03.2020 was pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that CP (IB) No. 172 of 2018 was filed by one of its Creditor before NCLT for initiation of insolvency proceedings under section 9 of the IBC Code, 2016. In the said company petition, the respondent authorities had registered their claim on 20.08.2019 as operational creditors with the resolution professional in statutory Form No. B. In the said claim, an amount of Rs. 38,86,63,983/- was claimed with regard to the assessment years, which have been referred in the demand notice. The said claim came to be accepted by the resolution professional and thus, the respondent authorities were part of resolution process initiated against the petitioner. However, NCLT without issuance of notice to the respondent authorities and without hearing the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot be denied that the respondent authorities were not aware about the pending liquidation proceedings. Further, from record it appears that objections were not raised by the respondent authorities against approval of the plan. Since, respondent did not object to approval of the plan, question of respondent not being heard would not arise. No application was filed before NCLT in the pending proceedings by the State authorities. 8. In the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited (supra) , it is held as under: 102. In the result, we answer the questions framed by us as under: 102.1. That once a resolution plan is duly approved by the adjudicating authority under sub-section (1) of Section 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
