M/S SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA
/11147/2024 · 2025-03-24
Avneesh Jhingan, Maneesh Sharma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 23705 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 23705 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:13199-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11147/2024 M/s Srei Equipment Finance Limited, 1 St Floor C 94, Fortune Heights, Subhash Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302001 Through- Its Associate Vice President Shri Tamojoy Dasgupta ----Petitioner Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Chief Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building, Statute Circle, Jaipur. 4. Assistant Commissioner, Cgst Division H, Sector 10, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Shukla with Mr. Raghav Sharma Mr. Kartikeya Sharma for Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 24/03/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL):-
1. This petition is filed assailing order dated 26.12.2023 passed by the assessing authority under Section 73 of Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act’) pertaining to period July 2017 to March 2018. [2025:RJ-JP:13199-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-11147/2024]
2. The grievance raised in this petition is that after approval of resolution plan on 11.08.2023 by the NCLT, the dues not claimed in the Insolvency and Banking Code proceedings for a period prior to approval of the resolution cannot be recovered. 3. The issue raised is no longer res integra. It has been decided by the Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. Edelwise Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2021) 13 SCR 737, wherein it was held. “95. In the result, we answer the questions framed by us as under: (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; (ii) 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 I&B Code has come into effect; (iii) 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.”
[2025:RJ-JP:13199-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-11147/2024]
4. In the case of the petitioner-company on this very issue the Supreme Court relying upon the decision of Ghanshyam (supra), allowed the civil appeal No.1436 of 2010 on 29.02.2024. 5. The Supreme Court in the case of Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in (2022) 6 SCC 343. “102. In the result, we answer the questions framed by us as under:
102.1. 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 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.”
[2025:RJ-JP:13199-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-11147/2024]
6. In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed and writ petition is allowed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Chandan/59 Reportable: No