Case Details: Kay Pan Fragrance (P) Ltd. vs. State of U.P. (2025) 34 Centax 140 (All.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Shekhar B. Saraf & Praveen Kumar Giri, JJ.
- Shri Zafar Ahmad Khan, for the Petitioner
- Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, CSC for the Respondent
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a corporate entity undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), was subjected to assessment proceedings under section 74 of the CGST Act read with the Uttar Pradesh GST Act. During the CIRP, a Resolution Plan was approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). Despite the approval of the Resolution Plan, the jurisdictional officer under GST proceeded to pass an assessment order creating additional tax, interest, and penalty liability. The petitioner contended that once the Resolution Plan was approved by the NCLT, no fresh claims could be raised against the resolution applicant, and that the impugned order sought to saddle it with liabilities extinguished under the insolvency process. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court held
The High Court held that once the Resolution Plan had been duly approved by the NCLT, the Department of Revenue was barred from creating further dues by way of passing assessment orders. It was observed that the resolution applicant could not be burdened with new tax claims post-approval, as the insolvency framework mandates finality and binding effect of the approved Resolution Plan on all stakeholders, including government authorities. The Court quashed the impugned assessment order, holding it unsustainable in law.
List Of Cases Cited
- Arena Superstructures (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India — (2025) 30 Centax 95 (All.) — Referred [Para 4]
- Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. — [2021] 126 taxmann.com 132 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 4]
- N.S. Papers Ltd. v. Union of India — Writ Tax No. 408 of 2021, dated 11-12-2024 by Supreme Court — Referred [Para 4]
- Vaibhav Goyal v. Dy. CIT — Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2022, dated 20-3-2025 by Supreme Court — Followed [Paras 6, 7]
