Orissa High Court
Bhusan Power And Steel vs Union Of India And Others .... Opposite ... on 20 September, 2025
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.12345 of 2025
Bhusan Power and Steel .... Petitioner
Limited
Represented By Adv.-
Mr. Kavin Gulati, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Arihant Tater, Advocate
Mr. Adhiraj Mohanty, Advocate
Mr. Dushyant Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Visalaksh, Advocate
Mr. A.D.Singh, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India and others .... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv.-
Mr. P.K.Parhi, DSGI along with
Mr. D. Gochhayat, CGC for O.P. No.1
Mr. A. Kedia, Jr. Standing Counsel
for O.P. No.2
Mr. Bismay Anand Prusty,
Sr. Standing Counsel
For O.P. No.3
CORAM:
JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
ORDER
20.09.2025
(Hybrid Mode)
Order No. 1. Heard learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the
02.
petitioner. Petitioner a successful resolution applicant is
before us challenging a demand of GST by an order dated
3.2.2025 issued by the jurisdictional authority i.e.
Additional Commissioner, GST & Central Excise
(O.P.No.3), the total demand being INR 98,83,60,756/-
excluding interest and salary percentage equivalent to tax
demand. The period of demand is from July, 2017 to
January, 2020.
2. It is brought to our notice by the learned senior
advocate that the period is prior to the effective date
of acceptance of successful resolution plan. Concededly
the authority demanding the tax had never raised any
such tax or lodged any such claim before or during the
resolution proceeding.
The learned senior counsel also brings to our notice
the order annexed to the writ petition marked as
Annexure-11 that is order dated 4.6.2021 passed by a
coordinate Bench in W.P.(C) No.9570 of 2021, that
pertains to a similar demand of tax for the period from
March, 2015 to 30th June, 2017. Thus, it is contended
that the present demand after period of demand has
been stayed by this Court by coordinate Benches order
dated 4.6.2021 as we have referred.
3. Apart from relying on the decision in
Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v.
Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.,
(2021) 9 SCC 657, learned senior advocate also relies
on decision in M/s JSW Steel Limited v. Pratishtha
Thakur Haritwal; 2025 INSC 401 decided by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court by the judgment dated
27.03.2025 to support his submission that there is no
authority on the part of the opposite party no.3 to raise
such a demand. He refers further to the judgment
rendered by the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 7248 of
2020 and CM APPL No. 24458 of 2020 (Bhusan Power
and Steel Ltd. v. Union of India) (Annexure-12 series). It
is contended that by the said judgment relying on
resolution plan which is also the basis of the petitioner's
case in the present writ petition that is resolution plan
concerning petitioner was approved by the National
Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under section 31 of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on 05.9.2019.
The NCLT affirmed the resolution plan vide order dated
17.02.2020 with slight modification and in the present
case the impugned order has been issued on 3.2.2025.
It is submitted the authority has taken action as per
Annexure-1 without any legal basis and there is
complete lack of authority in view of the law laid down
in judgments cited above.
4. Issue notice along with this order.
5. Learned DSGI upon advance copy served appears on
behalf of O.P. No.1 and waives notice. One extra copy
be served on learned DSGI.
Mr. Kedia, learned Junoir Standing Counsel upon
advance copy served, has entered appearance on behalf
of O.P.No.2 and waives notice.
One extra copy be served on Mr. Kedia.
Mr. Prusty, learned Senior Standing Counsel, GST &
Central Excise for O.P. No.3 upon advance copy served
appears and waives notice. Let one extra copy be served
on Mr. Prusty.
No further notice need be issued to the opposite
parties.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
He reiterates his submissions as noted above and
prays for interim order of stay of Annexure-1. Learned
DSGI, Mr. Kedia, learned Junior Standing Counsel and
Mr. Prusty, learned Sr. Standing Counsel oppose the
prayer for interim order.
7. Having heard learned senior advocate for the
petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties, we
direct interim stay of the impugned order dated 3.2.2025
passed by learned Additional Commissioner, GST &
Central Excise, Rourkela (O.P. No.3) until further orders.
8. Learned counsel for the opposite parties pray for time
to file their response to the writ petition as well as I.A.
9. As prayed for four weeks time granted for filing of the
counter by the opposite parties. Counter that would be
filed, shall be accepted upon copy being served on the
learned instructing counsel for the petitioner.
Liberty to mention.
(Manash Ranjan Pathak)
Judge
Signed (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Signed by: AJIT KUMAR DUTTA Judge
Reason: Authentication
Location: ohc
Date: 22-Sep-2025 19:43:37
