M/S Gkc Projects Ltd. Thru. Auth. Representative K. Sri Rama Krishna v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Deptt. Rajya Kar Vibagh Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2024WTAX/192/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner company challenged tax demand raised after resolution plan approval citing IBC Section 31 and Supreme Court precedent. Court recorded arguments, stayed proceedings, and listed case for counter affidavit.

What did the court decide?

stay on impugned order until next listing and expiry of counter affidavit period.

What the court decided

M/S Gkc Projects Ltd. Thru. Auth… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 192 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Gkc Projects Ltd. Thru. Auth. Representative K. Sri Rama Krishna Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Deptt. Rajya Kar Vibagh Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Naveen Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondent, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 and Dr. Ravi Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India.

¶6

This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following main prayer:-

¶7

"A. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing Impugned Order dated 29.4.2021 Annexure No.1 issued by the Respondent No.2- Dy. Commr. in Ref No.ZD091223585459V as being violative of Section 31, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. V. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. (2021) 13 SCR 737.; and"

¶8

It is the case of the petitioner that it is a company which underwent Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process pursuant to an order passed by the N.C.L.T. on 21.11.2019 in Case No.CP (IB) No.461/7/HDB/2019. During the Insolvency Resolution Process, a resolution professional was appointed who invited claims from all creditors. The respondent no.2 did not submit any claim within the statutory period. One SMC Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. submitted its resolution plan on 7.7.2020, which was accepted by the N.C.L.T. by an order dated 30.3.2021. An order was passed under Section 30 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. By virtue of the approval of such resolution plan, all dues including tax dues stood extinguished by operation of law.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out paragraph 77 of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and others , reported in (2021) 13 SCR 737 . After more than two years of the approval of the resolution plan, Sales Tax Officer issued a show cause notice to the petitioner company for financial year 2018-19 and

¶10

raised a total tax demand of Rs.2,07,53,746/- in the said show cause notice dated 27.12.2023. The petitioner submitted its reply on 25.1.2024 saying that it had undergone Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and no claim was submitted by the Sales Tax Officer within the prescribed time and, therefore, such demand cannot be raised after the last date as per the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Not only the reply was uploaded on the portal but also Judgment of the Supreme Court in Ghanashyam Mishra (supra) was uploaded to state that all dues against the company had been extinguished, however, by the impugned order dated 29.4.2024, the respondent no.2 has raised a demand of Rs.63,46,150/- which is against the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, this petition has been filed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance not only Judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra (supra) but has also claimed that similar tax dues were demanded from the company by the Revenue Department in the State of Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh and the petitioner filed writ petitions challenging such orders. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh sitting at Jabalpur stayed such demand in Writ Petition No. 8267 of 2024. Similarly, the High Court of Orissa sitting at Cuttak stayed such demand in Writ Petition (C) No.2774 of 2024 and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh sitting at Amarawati stayed similar demand in Writ Petition No.13883 of 2024. Copies of such orders passed in favour of the petitioner have been filed as Annexures 10, 11 and 12 to the writ petition.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the State respondents has produced the copy of instructions dated 22.7.2024 sent by one Parmahansh Lal Srivastava, Deputy Commissioner, State GST, Raebareli wherein it has been stated that in reply to the show cause notice that was issued to the petitioner company itself has accepted its liability and, therefore, a demand of Rs.30,58,385/as tax along with interest of Rs.29,821,925/- and penalty of Rs.3,05,838/- has been raised. However, since the petitioner is undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and its matter is pending before the N.C.L.T., the department has stayed the recovery proceedings on its own.

¶13

The instructions are kept on record.

¶14

Let counter affidavit be filed by the respondents within a period of six weeks.

¶15

Two weeks thereafter is given to the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶16

List on 18.9.2024.

¶17

Till the next date of listing, the impugned order shall remain stayed.

¶18

Whenever the case is listed next, name of Dr. Ravi Kumar Mishra shall be shown as counsel appearing for the Union of India-respondent no.3.

¶19

Order Date :- 24.7.2024 Ram Murti

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Gkc Projects Ltd. Thru. Auth. Representative K. Sri Rama Krishna v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Deptt. Rajya Kar Vibagh Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

M/S Gkc Projects Ltd. Thru. Auth. Representative K. Sri Rama Krishna v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Deptt. Rajya Kar Vibagh Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gajendra Kumar Srivastava and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Smt. Rama Devi vs the Chairman , National High Ways Authority of India , New Delhi and Others

Rahul Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Stuti Shrivastava and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Principal Commissioner ,Cgst and Central Excise Lko. vs M/S Adept , Lucknow

Shesh Ram Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Civil Secrt Lko. and Others