Calcutta High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -3 vs M/S. Shristi Hotel Pvt Ltd on 30 August, 2024
Author: Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
Bench: T.S Sivagnanam, Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
od 21
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)
ORIGINAL SIDE
IA NO. GA/3/2024
In
ITA/36/2020
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, KOLKATA
Vs
M/S. SHRISTI HOTEL PVT LTD.
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM
-A N D-
HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
DATE : 30th August, 2024.
Appearance :
Ms. Smita Das De, Adv.
The Court :- This application being GA/3/2024 has been filed by the
assessee to dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No. 36 of 2020 on the
ground that on account of an order passed by the National Appellate Law Tribunal
under the provision of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code the entire liability stands
extinguished and the insolvency resolution plan has also been approved. In this
regard we are guided by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RUCHI SOYA
INDUSTRIES LTD. AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA, reported in (2022) 6 Supreme
Court Cases 343, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :-
"8. Mr. Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, has
submitted that the present case is squarely covered by the law laid down
by this Court in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd.v.Edelweiss Asset
Reconstruction Co. Ltd. He submits that as a matter of fact, the office of
professional in respect of one of their demands. However, so far as the
2
demand, which is the subject matter of the present proceedings is
concerned, no claim was lodged in respect thereof, and as such, in view
of the law laid down by this Court while interpreting Section 31 IBC, the
respondents are now not entitled to claim any amount, which is not part
of the resolution plan.
9. Ms Bagchi, learned counsel appearing for Respondent 2, the Revenue,
on the contrary submits that no notice was issued to the Authority at
Mangalore. She further submits that there was certain confusion as to
whether the operational debt as defined under Section 5(21) IBC would
cover the claim of Respondent 2, the Revenue. It is, therefore, submitted
that in view of said confusion, there is a possibility that the office of
Respondent 2 might not have lodged the claim with respect to the
present proceedings.
10. We find that the present appeals are square covered by the law laid
down by this Court in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. It will be
relevant to refer to para 102 of the said judgment which reads as under:
(SCC p.716).
102. In the result, we answer the questions framed by us as under:
102. I. That once a resolution plan is duly approved by the adjudicating
authority under sub-section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in
the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the
corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the
Central Government, any State Government or any local authority,
guarantors and other stakeholders. On the date of approval of resolution
plan by the adjudicating authority, all such claims, which are not a part
of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be
entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim,
which is not part of the resolution plan.
102.2. The 2019 Amendment to Section 31 of the I&b Code is
clarificatory and declaratory in nature and therefore will be effective from
the date on which the I&B Code has come into effect.
102.3. Consequently, all the dues including the statutory dues owed to
the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, if
not part of the resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no
proceedings in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on
which the adjudicating authority grants its approval under Section 31
could be continued.
11. Admittedly, the claim in respect of the demand which is the subject
matter of the present proceedings was not lodged by Respondent 2 after
public announcements were issued under Sections 13 and 15 IBC. As
such, on the date on which the resolution plan was approved by the
learned NCLT, all claims stood frozen, and no claim, which is not a part
of the resolution plan, would survive.
12. In that view of the matter, the appeals deserve to be allowed only on
this ground. It is held that the claim of the respondent, which is not part
of the resolution plan, does not survive. The amount deposited by the
appellant at the time of admission of the appeals along with interest
accrued thereon is directed to be refunded to the appellant.
13. The appeals are allowed, accordingly. Pending IA(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of."
In the light of the above decision, the application being GA/3/2024 is
allowed and the appeal filed by the department in ITA/36/2020 is dismissed
treating the same as on day's list.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
pkd/GH.
