JUDGMENT

[Physical Court hearing/Hybrid hearing (as per request)]

Rajiv Shakdher, J.

Background and Facts

1. At the outset, it is noted that even though the petitioner has not filed an amended memo of parties, the cause title, as captured above, reflects the amended name of the petitioner, as per this Court's order dated 24.03.2022. 2. This writ action seeks to lay challenge to the notice dated 28.08.2018 issued under Section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "the Act"] and the order dated 17.10.2018. Via order dated 17.10.2018, the respondent [hereafter referred to as "revenue"] rejected the petitioner's, i.e., Tata Steel Ltd.'s [hereafter referred to as "TSL"], objections preferred qua the notice dated 28.08.2018.

2.1. The impugned notice dated 28.08.2018 called upon TSL to deposit tax against demands for Assessment Years (AYs) 2001-02, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2013-14. The cumulative value of the demand raised for the said AYs is Rs. 257,80,81,038/-. Besides this, the revenue via the very same notice, sought a response from TSL as to why a penalty under Section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"] ought not to be imposed.

3. TSL has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition, questioning the very jurisdiction of the revenue to enforce the demand for tax and penalty. The broad ground on which TSL seeks to assail the demand raised by the revenue is that it concerns periods which precede the date of approval of the Resolution Plan [in short, "RP"] by the concerned bench of National Company Law Tribunal [NCLT] and, therefore, fall within the ambit of the "clean slate" principle. In other words, the submission is that once the RP is approved, all stakeholders, i.e., secured creditors, unsecured creditors, shareholders, workers and employees, are bound by the terms contained therein. In this context, TSL asserts that the revenue is not any different from the other creditors.

3.1. Quite obviously, the revenue contends to the contrary.

4. Thus, for adjudication of the instant writ action, the following broad facts are required to be noticed:

5. The corporate entity against which a petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 [hereafter referred to as "2016 Code"] was filed by one of the financial creditors, i.e., State Bank of India [SBI], went by the name Bhushan Steel Ltd. [BSL]. The adjudicating authority, i.e., the concerned bench of NCLT, admitted SBI's application on 26.07.2017. Via the said order, the NCLT issued two significant directions. Firstly, it appointed an Interim Resolution Professional [IRP] and, secondly, imposed a moratorium, in consonance with the provisions of the 2016 Code.

6. The revenue, against the public announcement dated 26.07.2017 [which was published in (three) newspapers on 28.07.2017], submitted its claims with the IRP in the prescribed form on 28.09.2017, 24.10.2017 and 25.10.2017.

6.1. The claims lodged by the revenue related to the AYs 2009-10, 2010- 11 and 2013-14.

6.2. As indicated above, the impugned demand notice dated 28.08.2018, apart from the AYs referred to above, also alludes to the demand qua AY 2001-02.

7. Insofar as AY 2001-02 is concerned, the revenue sought to tax the subsidy received by BSL [as it then existed] from the State Government of Uttar Pradesh for setting up a plant at Sahibabad. The addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in this regard, was reversed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, "CIT(A)"] via an order dated 31.03.2003. The appeal preferred by the revenue against the CIT(A)'s order was dismissed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Tribunal"] via order dated 05.01.2005. The revenue, however, succeeded in persuading this Court to rule in its favour in an appeal preferred by it. Via order dated 04.08.2017, this Court held that the sales tax subsidy received by BSL was in the nature of a revenue receipt and, hence, was taxable.

7.1. Thus, the demand outstanding for AY 2001-02, as per t