Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

State Bank Of India vs The Assistant Commissioner on 5 September, 2023

Author: P.D.Audikesavalu

Bench: Sanjay V.Gangapurwala, P.D.Audikesavalu

                                                                         W.P.No.1816 of 2021


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED: 05.09.2023

                                                   CORAM :

                             THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                     AND
                                    THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU


                                              W.P.No.1816 of 2021

                     State Bank of India
                     Stressed Assets Management Branch
                     1112, Raja Plaza
                     Avinashi Road
                     Coimbatore 641 037
                     Rep. by Chief Manager                   ..     Petitioner

                                                      Vs.

                     1. The Assistant Commissioner
                        Office of the Assistant Commissioner of
                         Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise
                        Pollachi Division, Jothi Nagar
                        “D” Colony, Pollachi – 642 001.

                     2. The Joint Sub Registrar
                        Negamam
                        Tirupur, Arasapalayam
                        Pollachi – 642 001.                  ..     Respondents




                     Page 1 of 6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                               W.P.No.1816 of 2021




                     Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
                     seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the
                     first respondent order No.C.No.IV/16/19/2017-CE Arrears, dated
                     3.12.2020 and quash the same and consequently direct the second
                     respondent to cancel the attachment order dated 22.1.2018 registered
                     as Doc.No.5/2018 on 31.01.2018 on the file of the second respondent
                     within a time frame.



                                      For the Petitioner       : Mr.B.Raghavulu Naidu

                                      For the Respondents      : Mr.M.Santhanaraman
                                                                 for R1

                                                                 Mr.Karthik Jagannath
                                                                 Government Advocate
                                                                 for R2



                                                          ORDER

(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard Mr.B.Raghavulu Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Santhanaraman, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr.Karthik Jagannath, learned Government Advocate for the second respondent.

Page 2 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.1816 of 2021

2. It is not disputed that the matter under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as, “the IBC of 2016”) is pending before the National Company Law Tribunal against the corporate debtor.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the first respondent that once an application under Section 95 of the IBC of 2016 is filed, the adjudicating authority has to act on it. It is further submitted that Section 60 of the IBC of 2016 provides that the adjudicating authority, with regard to insolvency resolution and liquidation for corporate persons including corporate debtors and personal guarantors, is the National Company Law Tribunal.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the first respondent are ad idem that the matter will have to be dealt with by the National Company Law Tribunal.

Page 3 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.1816 of 2021

5. In the light of that, the writ petition stands disposed of. The petitioner may take steps before the National Company Law Tribunal, as may be permissible in law. In that event, all the contentions of the respective parties are kept open.

6. In view of the disposal of the present writ petition, the interim order, granted earlier, does not survive.

7. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.2031 of 2021 is closed.

                                                                   (S.V.G., CJ.)                (P.D.A., J.)
                                                                                   05.09.2023
                     Index                     :      Yes/No
                     Neutral Citation          :      Yes/No

                     drm




                     Page 4 of 6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.1816 of 2021 To

1. The Assistant Commissioner Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise Pollachi Division, Jothi Nagar “D” Colony, Pollachi – 642 001.

2. The Joint Sub Registrar Negamam Tirupur, Arasapalayam Pollachi – 642 001.

Page 5 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.1816 of 2021 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.

(drm) W.P.No.1816 of 2021 05.09.2023 Page 6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis