THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

MUMBAI BENCH-I
I.A. 2281 OF 2021

Under Section 60 (5) of Insolvency &

Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Ruchi Soya Industries Limited

...Applicant
V/s
State Load Despatch Centre, Madhya
Pradesh Power Transmission Company
Limited & Another
…Respondents

I.A. 1862 OF 2022

Under Section 60 (5) of Insolvency &

Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Patanjali Foods Limited

Formerly Known as Ruchi Soya Industries
Limited
...Applicant
V/s
Commissioner, Central Goods and Service
Tax & Central Excise, Haldia
Commissionerate & Another
…Respondents

I.A. 1496 OF 2022

THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH-I
I.A. 2281 OF 2021
I.A. 1862 OF 2022
I.A. 1496 OF 2022
I.A. 2011 OF 2022
I.A. 165 OF 2023
In
I.A. 1721 OF 2019
In
C.P.(IB) No. 1371/MB/2017
&
C.P.(IB) No. 1372/MB/2017

Under Section 60 (5) of Insolvency &

Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Ruchi Soya Industries Limited

...Applicant
V/s
The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
(A-5) Uttarakhand & Others
…Respondents

I.A. 2011 OF 2022

Under Section 60 (5) of Insolvency &

Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Ruchi Soya Industries Limited

...Applicant
V/s
The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
(A-5) Uttarakhand & Others
…Respondents

I.A. 165 OF 2023

2
THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH-I
I.A. 2281 OF 2021
I.A. 1862 OF 2022
I.A. 1496 OF 2022
I.A. 2011 OF 2022
I.A. 165 OF 2023
In
I.A. 1721 OF 2019
In
C.P.(IB) No. 1371/MB/2017
&
C.P.(IB) No. 1372/MB/2017

Under Section 60 (5) of Insolvency &

Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Patanjali Foods Limited

Formerly Known as Ruchi Soya Industries
Limited
...Applicant
V/s
State Tax Officer (6) Gujarat State Goods
and Service Tax Unit-103 Gandhidham
Kutch (Gujarat) & Another
…Respondents

In the matter of
I.A. 1721 OF 2019

Under Section 60 (5) of Insolvency &

Bankruptcy Code, 2016

Shailendra Ajmera
The Resolution Professional of Ruchi Soya
Industries Limited
...Applicant

In the matter of
3
 THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH-I
I.A. 2281 OF 2021
I.A. 1862 OF 2022
I.A. 1496 OF 2022
I.A. 2011 OF 2022
I.A. 165 OF 2023
In
I.A. 1721 OF 2019
In
C.P.(IB) No. 1371/MB/2017
&
C.P.(IB) No. 1372/MB/2017

C.P.(IB) No. 1371/MB/2017

&
C.P.(IB) No. 1372/MB/2017

Standard Chartered Bank &

DBS Bank Limited
…. Financial Creditors

Vs.

Ruchi Soya Industries Limited

…Corporate Debtor

Order delivered on: 08.11.2023

Coram:

Shri Prabhat Kumar Justice Shri V.G. Bisht

Hon’ble Member (Technical) Hon’ble Member (Judicial)

Appearances:
For the Applicant : Mr. J.P. Sen, Sr. Advocate
a/w Mr. Kunal Vaishnav &
Ms. Surbhi Soni i/b MGV &
Associates (Patanjali Foods
Limited)

For the Respondent : None

ORDER

4
 THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH-I
I.A. 2281 OF 2021
I.A. 1862 OF 2022
I.A. 1496 OF 2022
I.A. 2011 OF 2022
I.A. 165 OF 2023
In
I.A. 1721 OF 2019
In
C.P.(IB) No. 1371/MB/2017
&
C.P.(IB) No. 1372/MB/2017

Per: Prabhat Kumar, Member (Technical)

1. These five Applications IA 2281/2021, IA 1496/2022, IA

2011/2022, IA 1862/2022 & IA 165/2023 were filed on different
date(s) by M/s Ruchi Soya Industries Limited, (“Corporate
Debtor”) under Section 60(5) of The Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, 2016 ("Code") in CP 1371(IB)/MB/2017, for direction to
various Government Authorities and Public Sector Undertakings
to quash and set aside amounts of debt due and payable by the
Corporate Debtor till the date of approval of the Resolution Plan in
the case of Corporate Debtors. Since the issue(s) involved in these
applications i.e. liabilities pertaining to period upto approval of the
Resolution Plan are common, the same are being disposed of in
terms of present common Order.

2. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was initiated in

respect of Applicant by an order of the National Company Law
Tribunal, Mumbai dated 8th December 2017 read with order dated
15 December 2017, and the Resolution Plan submitted by the
Patanjali Ayurved Limited Consortium was approved by the
National Company Law Tribunal vide its Order dated 24 July 2019
read with Order dated 4 September 2019 and uploaded only on 6
September 2019. In terms of the approval of the Resolution Plan
the Patanjali Consortium has paid the entire sum as contemplated
therein and taken over the Applicant as on 15 December 2019.

5
 THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH-I
I.A. 2281 OF 2021
I.A. 1862 OF 2022
I.A. 1496 OF 2022
I.A. 2011 OF 2022
I.A. 165 OF 2023
In
I.A. 1721 OF 2019
In
C.P.(IB) No. 1371/MB/2017
&
C.P.(IB) No. 1372/MB/2017

3. In accordance with terms of Resolution Plan, all the liabilities

pertaining to the period till the approval of Plan by this Tribunal
were extinguished and not payable by the Corporate Debtor or its
successors. It is trite law that the Resolution Applicant gets the
Corporate Debtor on clean slat principal and is liable to discharge
the liabilities of the Corporate Debtor in terms of approved
Resolution Plan only.
4. The Brief details of each applications and prayers therein are as
follows –

4.1. IA 2281/2021 : The Applicant seeks quashing and set aside of

102 Demand notices issued in respect of DSM Charges by M/s
Reconnect Energy Solutions Private Limited (“Respondent
No. 2”) for and on behalf of State Load Despatch Center,
Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company Limited
(“Respondent No. 1”). The Brief facts pertaining to this
application is as follows -

4.1.1. Commencing from 24 July 2021, Respondent No2 has

addressed numerous emails to the Applicant whereby
Respondent No 2 (for and on behalf of Respondent No 1)
and on the basis of the DSM Statement (Deviation
Settlement Mechanism Statement) notified by Respondent
No 1. raised de-pooled DSM Demand Notes imposing
alleged DSM Charges for the period commencing from the
period of August 2018

6
 THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH-I
I.A. 2281 OF 2021
I.A. 1862 OF 2022
I.A. 1496 OF 2022
I.A. 2011 OF 2022
I.A. 165 OF 2023
In
I.A. 1721 OF 2019
In
C.P.(IB) No. 1371/MB/2017
&
C.P.(IB) No. 1372/MB/2017

4.1.2. According for the period of August 2018 to December

2019, the Applicant has received 12 depooled DSM
Demand Notes relating to the Police stations to a sum of
Rs 14997390. (rounded off) i.e. Impugned DSM Demand
Notes. From a perusal of the Impugned DSM Demand
Notes, it is apparent that these are towards the alleged
DSM Charges as per a notice issued by Respondent No.1
and is being charged by Respondent No.2 as the QCA on
behalf of Respondent No.1.

4.1.3. After approval of the Resolution Plan, Respondent No.2,

for and on behalf of itself and Respondent No.1 has inter
alia addressed emails commencing from 2nd July 2021
whereby (i) Respondent No.1 has sought to issue DSM
Statements each pooling sub-station wise for each month
(ii) Respondent No.2 has on the basis of such DSM
Statement, has raised the Impugned DSM Demand Notes
imposing alleged DSM Charges for the period commencing
from the period of August 2018 to December 2019 (i.e. the
period prior to approval of the Resolution Plan); and (iii)
threatened disconnection in the event of non-payment of
alleged DSM Charges.

4.2. IA 1496/2022 : The Applicant seeks quashing and/or set aside

of (i) the Assessment Order dated 29.09.2021 (received on

7
 THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH-I
I.A. 2281 OF 2021
I.A. 1862 OF 2022
I.A. 1496 OF 2022
I.A. 2011 OF 2022
I.A. 165 OF 2023
In
I.A. 1721 OF 2019
In
C.P.(IB) No. 1371/MB/2017
&
C.P.(IB) No. 1372/MB/2017

25.04.2022) under Section 25 (7) of the UKVAT Act imposing

a liability on the Applicant for the sum of Rs.35,241/- in
relation to VAT for AY 2015-2016 (Exhibit A to Application);
and (ii) Assessment Order dated 29.09.2021 (received on
25.04.2022) under Section 9(2) of the CST Act imposing a
liability on the Applicant for the sum of Rs.15,32,262/- in
relation to sales tax for AY 2015-2016 and further direct the
Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (A-5), Uttarakhand Goods
& Service Tax Department (Commercial Tax Department),
Sales Tax, Dehradun {“Respondent No. 1”} and
Commissioner of Commercial Tax, State Goods and Service
Tax Department (“Respondent No. 2”); The Executive
Magistrate (Tehsildar), Dehradun (“Respondent No. 3”) and
/ or any other officer / department / authority / person acting
through or under them, to not initiate any proceedings / take
any steps / raise any demand/ claims for any amount
(including interest) in relation to / furtherance of the
aforementioned Impugned Orders or any other notice relating
thereto; to restrain the Respondents and/ or any other officer /
department / authority person acting through or under them,
from issuing any notice(s)/ demands / orders which relate to a
period prior to the date of approval of the Resolution Plan i.e.
9th December 2019; pending the hearing and final disposal of
the present Application, to stay the effect, operation and
implementation of the Assessment Order dated 29.09.2021
(received on 25.04.2022) under Section 25 (7) of the UKVAT

8
 THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH-I
I.A. 2281 OF 2021
I.A. 1862 OF 2022
I.A. 1496 OF 2022
I.A. 2011 OF 2022
I.A. 165 OF 2023
In
I.A. 1721 OF 2019
In
C.P.(IB) No. 1371/MB/2017
&
C.P.(IB) No. 1372/MB/2017

Act imposing a liability on the Applicant for the sum of

Rs.35,241/-in relation to VAT for AY 2015- 2016 (Exhibit A to
Application); Assessment Order dated 29.09.2021 (received on
25.04.2022) under Section 9(2) of the CST Act imposing a
liability on the Applicant for the sum of Rs.15,32,262/-in
relation to sales tax for AY 2015-2016 (Exhibit B to
Application); and pending the hearing and final disposal of the
present Application, to direct the Respondents and/ or any
other officer / department / authority/person acting through
or under them, to not take any steps, coercive or otherwise,
including but not limited to demanding on assessment /
reassessment, demanding filing of any returns, attaching any
accounts/assets of the Applicant and/or to recover any liability
/ dues or stay any recovery proceedings, in furtherance of the
Assessment Order passed or which may be passed in relation to
period upto the Resolution Plan Approval date.
4.2.1. In respect of the CIRP, the following communications
were also issued on behalf of the Applicant (1) Letter dated
06.11.2019 to the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax-7,
Commercial Tax Department, Department of State Tax,
Mohabbewala, Dehradun, informing him of the
completion of CIRP, approval of the Resolution Plan and
specifically stating that all prior liabilities stand
extinguished; (ii) The aforesaid details alongwith the letter
and orders as enclosures were also intimated to the

9
 THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH-I
I.A. 2281 OF 2021
I.A. 1862 OF 2022
I.A. 1496 OF 2022
I.A. 2011 OF 2022
I.A. 165 OF 2023
In
I.A. 1721 OF 2019
In
C.P.(IB) No. 1371/MB/2017
&
C.P.(IB) No. 1372/MB/2017

Respondents vide the email dated 12.11.2019 addressed to

the email id '[email protected].
4.2.2. On 25.04.2022 (ie. After nearly 2½ years from the date of
the approval Order), the Applicant received two Orders
passed by Respondent No.1 relating to AY 2015 – 2016 –
(1) Assessment Order dated 29.09.2021 under Section 25
(7) of the UKVAT Act imposing a liability on the Applicant
for the sum of Rs.35,241/- in relation to VAT for AY 2015
2016; and (ii) Assessment Order dated 29.09.2021 under
Section 9(2) of the CST Act imposing a liability on the
Applicant for the sum of Rs.15,32,262/-in relation to sales
tax for AY 2015-2016 9. Respondent No.1 had served a
copy of the Impugned Orders upon the Applicant nearly 7
months after the same appears to have been passed.
Further, by the Impugned Orders, Respondent No.1 has
sought to demand tax under the UKVAT Act and CST Act
from the Applicant which relates to a period prior to the
CIRP. It is not out of place to mention that no claim had
been filed in respect of AY 2015-2016 by the Respondents
with the RP during the CIRP.
4.3. IA 2011/2022 : The Applicant seeks quashing and/or set aside
of (a) Assessment Order dated 05.01.2021 (received on
17.09.2021) under Section 25 (7) of the UKVAT Act imposing
a liability on the Applicant for the sum of Rs.1,076/- in relation
to VAT for AY 2016- 2017 (Exhibit A to Application): (b)
Assessment Order dated 05.01.2021 (received on 17.09.2021)

10
 THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH-I
I.A. 2281 OF 2021
I.A. 1862 OF 2022
I.A. 1496 OF 2022
I.A. 2011 OF 2022
I.A. 165 OF 2023
In
I.A. 1721 OF 2019
In
C.P.(IB) No. 1371/MB/2017
&
C.P.(IB) No. 1372/MB/2017

under Section 9(2) of the CST Act imposing a liability on the

Applicant for the sum of Rs.5,04,754/- in relation to sales tax
for AY 2016- 2017 (Exhibit B to Application) issued by Deputy
Commissioner of State Tax (A-5), Uttarakhand Goods &
Service Tax Department (Commercial Tax Department), Sales
Tax, Dehradun {“Respondent No. 1”} under the jurisdiction
of Commissioner of Commercial Tax, State Goods and Service
Tax Department (“Respondent No. 2”) and (iii) Notice dated
01.11.2021 issued by The Executive Magistrate (Tehsildar),
Dehradun (“Respondent No. 3”) to the Applicant under
Section 280 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 inter alia seeking recovery of the sum of
Rs.5,05,830/- along with interest in the sum of Rs.3,98,341/-
(Exhibit J to Application) and further direct the Respondents
and/or any other officer/ department / authority/person
acting through or under them, to not initiate any proceedings /
take any steps / raise any demand / claims for any amount
(including interest) in relation to / furtherance of the
aforementioned Impugned Orders or any other notice relating
thereto; to restrain the Respondents and/ or any other officer /
department / authority/person acting through or under them,
from issuing any notice(s)/ demands / orders which relate to a
period prior to the date of approval of the Resolution Plan i.e.
9th December 2019; to stay the effect, operation and
implementation of the assessment orders stated in the
Application and to restrain the Respondents from taking any

11
 THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH-I
I.A. 2281 OF 2021
I.A. 1862 OF 2022
I.A. 1496 OF 2022
I.A. 2011 OF 2022
I.A. 165 OF 2023
In
I.A. 1721 OF 2019
In
C.P.(IB) No. 1371/MB/2017
&
C.P.(IB) No. 1372/MB/2017

steps, coercive or otherwise, including but not limited to

demanding on assessment / reassessment, demanding filing of
any returns, attaching any accounts/ assets of the Applicant
and / or to recover any liability / dues or stay any recovery
proceedings, in furtherance of the Assessment Order passed or
which may be passed in relation to period upto the Resolution
Plan Approval date.
4.4. IA 1862/2022 : The Applicant seeks quashing and/or
aside of (a) the Order bearing
n13/IC/CGST/Haldia/Adjn/2018 dated 31.05.2018 passed
by Respondent No 1 for the period 21.07.2005 to 31.03.2006
(Exhibit A to Application); and (ii) the Notice dated 02.05.2022
(Exhibit B to Application) issued by Commissioner, Central
Goods and Services Tax & Central Excise, Haldia
Commissionerate, Kolkata {“Respondent No 1”} and / or the
Notice dated 24.06.2022 (Exhibit C hereto) issued by Asstt.
Commissioner, Haldia-1 Division, Haldia CGST & CX.
Commissionerate, Haldia {“Respondent No.2”} and / or any
further notices Issued by the Respondents in furtherance of or
seeking to recover the sums as per the Impugned Order dated
31.05.2018 and further direct the Respondents and / or any
other officer/ department / authority/person acting through or
under them, to not initiate any proceedings/take any steps /
raise any demand/ claims for any amount (including interest)
in relation to furtherance of the aforementioned Impugned
Orders or any other notice relating thereto; to restrain the

12
 THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH-I
I.A. 2281 OF 2021
I.A. 1862 OF 2022
I.A. 1496 OF 2022
I.A. 2011 OF 2022
I.A. 165 OF 2023
In
I.A. 1721 OF 2019
In
C.P.(IB) No. 1371/MB/2017
&
C.P.(IB) No. 1372/MB/2017

Respondents and/or any other officer / department/

authority/person acting through or under them, from issuing
any notice(s) / demands / orders which relate to a period prior
to the date of approval of the Resolution Plan i.e. 9th December
2019; and to stay the effect, operation and implementation of
the Order(s) and Notices passed under the relevant statute; to
restrain from taking any steps, coercive or otherwise, including
but not limited to demanding on assessment / reassessment,
demanding filing of any returns, attaching any accounts /
assets of the Applicant and / or to recover any liability/ dues
or stay any recovery proceedings, any further notices issued by
the Respondents in furtherance of the or seeking to recover the
sums as per the Impugned Order dated 31.05.2018/.
4.4.1. On 18.07.2006, Respondent No.1 issued a Show Cause
cum Demand Notice to Madhya Pradesh Glychem
Industries Ltd. L.e. MP Glychem calling upon MP
Glychem to show cause why central excise duty in the sum
of Rs.84,94,259/-and education cess in the sum of
Rs.1,69,855/- for the period of 21.07.2005 to 31.03.2006
should not be demanded and recovered from MP Glychem,
which was responded to by MP Glychem vide its letter
dated 10.08.2006 explaining the manner in which the
demand was untenable and ought not to be demanded and
/ or recovered from MP Glychem.
4.4.2. Composite Scheme of Arrangement and Amalgamation
was submitted to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court

13
 THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH-I
I.A. 2281 OF 2021
I.A. 1862 OF 2022
I.A. 1496 OF 2022
I.A. 2011 OF 2022
I.A. 165 OF 2023
In
I.A. 1721 OF 2019
In
C.P.(IB) No. 1371/MB/2017
&
C.P.(IB) No. 1372/MB/2017

(Scheme'). As recorded in Part C of the Scheme, the SVF

Business of MP Glychem was purchased by the Applicant
on a slump sale basis and as a going concern for a
consideration of Rs.80.57 crores. The Hon'ble Bombay
High Court vide its Order dated 30.06.2006 was pleased to
allow the Company Petitions by which the companies had
sought approval of the Scheme.
4.4.3. At the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Applicant
on 29.09.2006, the implementation of the Scheme was
discussed and resolved that the certified copies be filed with
the Registrar of Companies to give effect to the Scheme and
to give effect to the Scheme from 04.09.2006. Thus, the
SVF Business of MP Glychem to which the Impugned
Order and Impugned Notices relate, was transferred to the
Applicant. Thereafter, no further steps were taken by the
Respondents in furtherance of the Show Cause Notice.
4.4.4. Despite the approval of the Resolution Plan in case of
Corporate in terms of provisions of Insolvency &
Bankruptcy Code, on 02.05.2022 (i.e. after nearly 2½ years
from the date of the approval Order), the Applicant
received a Notice from Respondent No.1 inter alia
informing Respondent No.1 that an Order dated
31.05.2018 had been passed against the Applicant,
however, no details of an appeal had been furnished to
Respondent No.1.

14
 THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH-I
I.A. 2281 OF 2021
I.A. 1862 OF 2022
I.A. 1496 OF 2022
I.A. 2011 OF 2022
I.A. 165 OF 2023
In
I.A. 1721 OF 2019
In
C.P.(IB) No. 1371/MB/2017
&
C.P.(IB) No. 1372/MB/2017

4.4.5. The Applicant learnt that on 31.05.2018, Respondent

No.1 has passed the Impugned Order being an Order
bearing no.13/JC/CGST/Haldia/Adjn/2018, relating to
alleged evasion of payment of Central Excise duty for the
period 21.07.2005 to 31.03.2006 and thereby imposing (1)
Central Excise duty amounting to Rs.84,94,259/- and
Education Cess of Rs.1,69,885/- under Section 11A(2) of
the Central Excise Act, 1944; (ii) interest at the appropriate
rate in terms of Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act;
and (iii) penalty of Rs.86,64,144/- under Section 11AC.
4.4.6. Thereafter, on 24.06.2022, Respondent No.2 has issued
the Recovery Notice being a Notice for Recovery of the
sum of (1) Central Excise duty amounting to
Rs.84,94,259/- and Education Cess of Rs.1,69,885/-; (ii)
interest as is applicable; and (iii) penalty of Rs.86,64,144/-
.This Notice although addressed to MP Glychem, relates to
the unit of MP Glychem which has been purchased by the
Applicant and thus this Recovery Notice has -effectively
been issued to the Applicant whereby the Applicant has
been called upon to pay the amounts failing which action
shall be taken against the Applicant. On the basis of these
Order and the notices, the Respondents seek to raise a
demand and recover monies from the Applicant that relate
to the period 21.07.2005 to 31.03.2006 i.e. for a period prior
to the date of the CIRP.

15
 THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH-I
I.A. 2281 OF 2021
I.A. 1862 OF 2022
I.A. 1496 OF 2022
I.A. 2011 OF 2022
I.A. 165 OF 2023
In
I.A. 1721 OF 2019
In
C.P.(IB) No. 1371/MB/2017
&
C.P.(IB) No. 1372/MB/2017

4.4.7. None of the Respondents or any other officer from their

departments filed any claim relating the purported Central
Excise Duty and / or penalty in that regard for the period
21.07.2005 to 31.03.2006. Thus, having failed to do so, any
alleged claim / demand for the period stands extinguished
and the question therefore of recovering any sums from the
Applicant after completion of the CIRP does not arise.
5. IA-165/2023 : The Applicant seeks quashing and set aside- i)
Impugned Show Cause Notices dated 09.06.2022, 03.09.2022 and
06.09.2022 [Exhibits "T" to "V" to the Application], (a) the
Impugned Order dated 02.01.2023 passed by State Tax Officer (6),
Gujarat State Goods and Service Tax, Unit 1-3, Gandhigram
(“Respondent No.1”) relating to the tax period 01.07.2017 to
31.03.2018 [Exhibit "A" to the Application]; and (iii) Order dated
01.01.2023 passed by Respondent No.1 calling upon the Applicant
to make the payment of the sum of Rs.80,83,33,700/- relating to
the tax period 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2018 [Exhibit "B"] and direct the
Respondents and / or any other officer / department / authority /
person acting through or under them, to not initiate any
proceedings, for recovery or otherwise / raise any demand / claims
for any amount (including interest) in relation to / furtherance of
the aforementioned Impugned Orders and / or Notices; pending
the hearing and final disposal of the present Application, in the
alternative to stay the effect, operation and implementation of (a)
Impugned Show Cause Notices dated 09.06.2022, 03.09.2022 and
06.09.2022 [Exhibits "T" to "V" to the Application], (b) the

16
 THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH-I
I.A. 2281 OF 2021
I.A. 1862 OF 2022
I.A. 1496 OF 2022
I.A. 2011 OF 2022
I.A. 165 OF 2023
In
I.A. 1721 OF 2019
In
C.P.(IB) No. 1371/MB/2017
&
C.P.(IB) No. 1372/MB/2017

Impugned Order dated 02.01.2023 passed by Respondent No.1

relating to the tax period 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2018 [Exhibit "A" to
the Application]; and (c) Order dated 01.01.2023 passed by
Respondent No.1 calling upon the Applicant to make the payment
of the sum of Rs.80,83,33,700/- relating to the tax period
01.07.2017 to 31.03.2018 [Exhibit "B" to the Application); and
pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Application,
to direct the Respondents and / or any other officer / department
/ authority/ person acting through or under them, to not take any
steps, coercive or otherwise, including but not limited to
commencing with, continuing or finalising any assessment /
reassessment proceeding(s), penalty, demanding on assessment /
reassessment, demanding filing of any returns, attaching any
accounts / assets of the Applicant and / or to recover any liability
/ dues / penalty, in furtherance of the (a) Show Cause Notices
dated 09.06.2022, 03.09.2022 and 06.09.2022 [Exhibits "T" to "V"
to the Application], (b) the Impugned Order dated 02.01.2023
passed by Respondent No.1 relating to the tax period 01.07.2017 to
31.03.2018 [Exhibit "A" to the Application]; and (c) Order dated
01.01.2023 passed by Respondent No.1 calling upon the Applicant
to make the payment of the sum of Rs.80,83,33,700/- relating to
the tax period 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2018 [Exhibit "B" to the
Application]. The Application has also impleaded Assistant
Commissioner of State Tax Unit-103, Gandhigram as
(“Respondent No. 2”).

17
 THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH-I
I.A. 2281 OF 2021
I.A. 1862 OF 2022
I.A. 1496 OF 2022
I.A. 2011 OF 2022
I.A. 165 OF 2023
In
I.A. 1721 OF 2019
In
C.P.(IB) No. 1371/MB/2017
&
C.P.(IB) No. 1372/MB/2017

6. We have heard the Counsel and perused the material available on

record.

6.1. We find that Para 21 of the Order dated 24.07.2019

contains the financial proposals of the Resolution Applicant in
relation to the Applicant in this Application, and under sl. No.
6 of the Table in that Para, it is clearly stated that “All claims or
liabilities etc. owed to any Operational Creditor by the Corporate
Debtor, in relation to any period prior to the Effective Date or on
acquisition of control of the Corporate Debtor by the Resolution
Applicant through the SPV proposed to stand extinguished upon the
receipt of the said amount by the operational creditors pursuant to the
approval of the resolution plan by the Hon’ble NCLT”.

6.2. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Raman Ispat (P) Ltd.,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 842, decided on 17-07-2023 held that
“Similarly, in Duncans Industries Ltd. v. AJ Agrochem39, Section
16G of the Tea Act, 1953 which required prior consent of the Central
Government (for initiation of winding up proceedings) was held to be
overridden by the IBC. In a similar manner, it is held that Section 238
of the IBC overrides the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 despite
the latter containing two specific provisions which open with non-
obstante clauses (i.e., Section 173 and 174). The position of law with
respect to primacy of the IBC, is identical with the position discussed in
Sundaresh Bhatt and Duncan Industries (supra) [refer also:

18
 THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH-I
I.A. 2281 OF 2021
I.A. 1862 OF 2022
I.A. 1496 OF 2022
I.A. 2011 OF 2022
I.A. 165 OF 2023
In
I.A. 1721 OF 2019
In
C.P.(IB) No. 1371/MB/2017
&
C.P.(IB) No. 1372/MB/2017

Innoventive Industries (supra), CIT v. Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. ,

Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset
Reconstruction Co. Ltd. , and Jagmohan Bajaj v. Shivam Fragrances
Private Limited.”

6.3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified the same

in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. Vs. Satish
Kumar Gupta & Ors. [2019] ibclaw.in 07 SC, wherein it was held
that 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. Further, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the similar position in case
of RPS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Mukul Kumar & Anr. (2023)
ibclaw.in 102 SC in these words “We find it difficult to unleash the
hydra-headed monster of undecided claims on the resolution
applicant.”

6.4. Admittedly, the DSM Demand Notes/ Assessment

Orders/ Show Cause Notices/ Notices, subject matter of
present applications, relate to the period prior to the Approval
of the Resolution Plan i.e. 6 September 2019, which is a period
prior to the date of approval of the resolution plan. It is trite
law that on approval of the Resolution Plan all claims prior to

19
 THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH-I
I.A. 2281 OF 2021
I.A. 1862 OF 2022
I.A. 1496 OF 2022
I.A. 2011 OF 2022
I.A. 165 OF 2023
In
I.A. 1721 OF 2019
In
C.P.(IB) No. 1371/MB/2017
&
C.P.(IB) No. 1372/MB/2017

the date of approval stand extinguished i.e. all claims that had
been filed shall stand extinguished in the manner in which they
had been dealt with in the Resolution Plan and the claims
which had not been filed cannot be agitated after the approval
of the Resolution Plan.

6.5. In view of aforesaid discussion, we direct the

Respondents in aforesaid application to withdraw Demand
Notes/ Assessment Orders/ Show Cause Notices/ Notices,
subject matter of present applications forthwith and not to
enforce any recovery or claim in relation to such invoices, as
no claim lies against the Corporate Debtor Applicant pursuant
to the approval of Resolution Plan. It may be noted by the
Respondents that their continued disobedience to the Law of
land in this relation may invite contempt proceedings in terms
of Section 425 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 11
of the NCLT Rules, 2016.

7. In view of foregoing, IA 2281/2021, IA 1496/2022, IA 2011/2022,

IA 1862/2022 & IA 165/2023 is disposed of as allowed in terms of
prayers therein.

Sd/- Sd/-
Prabhat Kumar Justice V.G. Bisht
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

20