Once a resolution plan is approved under the IBC, the claims provided in the plan are binding and any claims not included in the plan are extinguished.

JUDGMENT :

BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, matter is taken up for final hearing. Ms. Shrunjal Shah, learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents.

2. By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution Of India, the petitioner has made the following prayers:

“1. Quash the impugned assessment orders, assessment notices and demand notice namely, notice no. 3069 dated 14.02.2019 (ANNEXUREU) and notice no. 3105 dated 16.02.2019 (ANNEXURE-V) issued by the Respondent no. 6, notice dated 20.07.2020 (ANNEXURE-W) issued by Respondent no. 5, notice dated 18.07.2020 (ANNEXURE-P), order dated 22.01.2021 (ANNEXURE-S) and order dated 22.01.2021 (ANNEXURE-T); issued by the respective Respondents; and

2. Quash the pending proceedings against the Petitioner and refund the amount paid as pre-deposit;

3. Respondents may be restrained from raising any further demands or proceeding with any coercive steps so far as dues incurred in relation to the period prior to Transfer Date;

4. Provide directions for expeditious disposal of pending matters involving the Respondents; ….”

2. Facts in brief are as under:

2.1 The petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Ultratech Cement Ltd and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of cement and allied products. Since Binani Cements was unable to pay the debt of the bank, the concerned bank had filed an before the NCLT. Vide order dated 25.07.2017, NCLT admitted the petition for initiating the CIRP process.

2.2 On 28.07.2017, a public announcement was made by the Resolution Professional (RP) inviting claims from all the creditors of the corporate debtor. The RP upon receipt of the claims maintained a list of creditors alongside the amount claimed by them and the security interest. On 28.05.2018, the CoC unanimously voted in favour of the resolution plan and therefore Ultratech emerged as the successful resolution applicant.

2.3 The Resolution plan was approved by the NCLAT vide order dated 14.11.2018. The challenge to the order before the Supreme Court failed. The name of the petitioner changed from Binani Cement to Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Limited w.e.f. 13.12.2018. The management was taken over on 20.11.2018. The petitioner informed the respondent no.2 vide letters dated 26.11.2018 and 26.12.2018 for the approval of the Resolution Plan.

2.4 Demands were raised by the respondents vide notice dated 16.2.2019 and letter dated 6.3.2019. The petitioner informed the respondents that in accordance with the resolution plan as approved by the order dated 14.11.2018, all litigations pertaining to the petitioner prior to the transfer date would stand withdrawn without any further act, instrument and the petitioner would be immune for attachment or interference. Reliance was placed on Section 31 of IBC and Section 238 of the IBC to submit that all liabilities would stand discharged.

2.5 A demand notice dated 18.7.2019 was received for tax dues of the FY 2016-2017. Thereafter, on 22.01.2021 assessment order was passed whereby respondent no. 5 confirmed demands of interest in lieu of delayed payment of GVAT and CST for the period from 1.4.2016 to 1.11.2016.

3. Mr. Jay Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that all the impugned notices and orders were bad once the Resolution Plan was in place and the Resolution Plan provided clauses especially 6.2.3.5 in respect of operation creditors like the respondents herein which proved exemption.

3.1 Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in terms of the Resolution Plan, the claims of all the creditors including statutory operational creditors would stand extinguished and discharged upon the payment of the resolution plan. He would therefore submit that the present demands raised by the Respondents are untenable and bad in law and against the provisions of the Code.

4. Ms. Shrunjal Shah, learned AGP appearing for the responde