The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code's provisions override tax claims from pre-insolvency periods, barring enforcement of assessments not included in a Resolution Plan.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The instant Review Petition has been filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) by the petitioner-company seeking review of the judgment dated 02.03.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6890 of 2020. By the said judgment, a Division Bench of this Court had dismissed the petitioner’s Writ Petition which challenged an assessment order dated 18.03.2014 and accompanying demand notice dated 18.03.2014 issued by the Income Tax Department in respect of Assessment Year 2011-12. The petitioner now seeks to recall of that decision on the ground that it was rendered without considering material provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) and other relevant law, resulting in an error apparent on the face of the record.

2. For clarity, the operative portion of the Division Bench’s order under review is reproduced below:

“Heard Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.S.Mohapatra, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department.

In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed to quash the order of assessment dated 18.03.2024 vide Annexure-1 as well as the Demand Notice dated 18.03.2014 vide Annexure-2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar question has been considered by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata passed in C.P. (IB) No.16/KB/2017 dated 07.11.2017 and that too the same has been approved by the National Company Appellate Tribunal and incidentally the period of which the benefit the petitioner is asking for is covered by the appellate authority of NCLT, Kolkata. Therefore, the assessment made by the authority cannot be claimed by the petitioner as per the demand raised.

Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Income Tax Department contended that the petitioner cannot come against the order of assessment 2014 before this Court by filing the present writ application because remedy is available under law to approach the appellate forum. Instead of approaching the appellate forum, the petitioner should not have filed this application before this Court.

Considering the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and the materials available on record, it appears that the petitioner has filed this application seeking to quash the assessment order dated 18.05.2014 under Annexure-1 as well as demand notice under Annexure-2 which are also appealable orders. It is contended that because of pendency of the cases before the NCLT and subsequently an approval made by NCLT, the petitioner is liable to pay such amount. But as such, to a query by this Court learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner has lost any question before the said forum with regard to such assessment because he is not a person aggrieved.

In view of such position if the petitioner is not a person aggrieved then he could not have approached this Court and make an application against the demand notice and the assessment order. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that adequate remedy is available for the petitioner under the Income Tax Act read with the Companies Act before appropriate forum.

Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with this writ petition, and as such, the same stands dismissed.”

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

3. The petitioner-company is engaged in the bu