Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"Section 31(1) of the Code makes it clear that once a resolution plan is approved by the Committee of Creditors it shall be binding on all stakeholders, including guarantors. This is for the reason that this provision ensures that the successful resolution applicant starts running the business of the corporate debtor on a fresh slate as it were For the same reason, the impugned NCLAT judgment in holding that claims that may exist apart from those decided on merits by the resolution professional and by the Adjudicating Authority/Appellate Tribunal can now be decided by an appropriate forum in terms of Section 60(6) of the Code, also militates against the rationale of Section 31 of the Code. A successful resolution applicant cannot suddenly be faced with "undecided" claims after the resolution plan submitted by him has been accepted as this would amount to a hydra head popping up which would throw into uncertainty amounts payable by a prospective resolution applicant who successfully take over the business of the corporate debtor. All claims must be submitted to and decided by the resolution professional so that a prospective resolution applicant knows exactly what has to be paid in order that it may then take over and run the business of the corporate debtor. This the successful resolution applicant does on a fresh slate, as has been pointed out by us hereinabove. For these reasons, the NCLAT judgment must also be set aside on this count."

3.1 Further, the Resolution Professional, Sh. Mahender Khandelwal intimated that Resolution Plan submitted by JSW Steel Limited has been approved by Committee of Creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the said plan has been placed before NCLT. The NCLT vide its order dated 05.09.2019 accepted the Resolution Plan.

3.2 Consequent upon order passed by the NCLT, a letter was issued to assessee asking the assessee to deposit the outstanding demand as per Resolution Plan in October, 2019. The assessee replied in January, 2020 and requested for stay of demand on the ground that it had filed appeal before National Company law Appellate Tribunal(NCLAT), New Delhi against the order passed by NCLT. Further, the Hon'ble NCLAT upheld the decision of NCLT vide its order dated 17.02.2020.

3.3 The assessee filed a letter in June, 2020 stating that as per the orders passed by NCLAT and as per Resolution Plan of JSW Steel that was accepted by NCLT, the IT department is eligible for recovery of only 10% of v the principal amount (excluding any interest and penalty amounts) that too if the demand is crystallized within a period of 2 years from date of approval of this Resolution Plan by CoC. If the demand is crystallized, the Department will get a maximum of Rs. 18.88 Crores only (10% of principal amount of demand raised) and since the department had already adjusted about Rs. 75 crores out of various refunds, the assessee is eligible for the refund of about Rs. 57 Crores. The assessee's stand is that by virtue of NCLT and NCLAT orders, all the pending claims/demands and pending litigations against the assessee pertaining to period prior to effect date shall stand extinguished, pending proceedings will be deemed to have been withdrawn or dismissed or terminated and liabilities or obligations in relation thereto will be deemed to have been written off in full and permanently extinguished.

18. Regarding the submission of the assessee company seeking directions to the AO to nullify the demand pertaining to A.Y 2012-13 given that it pertains to period prior to the effective date as provided in the resolution plan, we find that there are claims by the assessee company about the extinguishment of such liability in view of the provisions of the IBC, the resolution plan (Section 2.2(g), Section 1.6 and in particular clause (vi) of para 1.6 Part B), intimation of insolvency proceedings by the Resolution Professional vide his letter dated 20.03.2019 addressed to ld PCIT(Central), Gurgaon, the resolution plan as approved by NCLT (para 108 pages 115-117 ) dated 5.09.2019 and subsequent order of the NCLAT dated 17.02.2020; and the counter-claims by the Revenue in terms of raising of its claim amounting to Rs 277,13,55,962/- vide its letter dated 23.08.2017 during the CIRP proceedings (which has not been disputed by the assessee as noted in its written submission para 1(iii) supra), lack of communication on part of the Resolution Professional and consequent lack of status of the Revenue's claim as provided in the resolution plan and the interpretation of orders passed by NCLT (para 128(g))and NCLAT order (para 133(iv)) vis-à-vis tax dues, we believe that it is relevant to determine the status of the claim so made by the Revenue well made during the course of the CIRP proceedings and how the same has been dealt with by the Resolution Professional while finalizing the resolution plan and basis and quantum thereof, as the same is not clearly emerging from the resolution plan, especially where the income tax litigation pertaining to A.Y 2012-13 finds mention in Annexure 4 (Details of Tax litigation) to clause (vi) of para 1.6 Part B of the resolution plan. It is therefore a case where the tax litigation pertaining to A.Y 2012-13 finds mention in the resolution plan but how the same has been dealt with and provided for in the resolution plan is not clearly emerging. It is only where the claim of the Revenue doesn't form part of the resolution plan and such resolution plan is approved by the NCLT and has attained finality in absence of any further appeal, the liability of the assessee company towards the Revenue can be said to have been extinguished. In case there is any modification done by the NCLT, being the adjudicating authority, the resolution plan as so approved and which has attained finality in absence of any further appeal would be binding on the assessee as well as the Revenue. In the instant case, there are certain modification done in the resolution plan by NCLT and thereafter NCLT order has been challenged before the NCLAT therefore the findings of the NCLT and that of the NCLAT would also be relevant and needs to be taken into consideration. We therefore deem it appropriate to restore the matter to this limited extent to the file of the Assessing officer to examine all these aspects and take necessary action in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee company.