Once a Resolution Plan is approved by the NCLT, subsequent claims by creditors are barred to prevent disruption of the resolution process.

JUDGMENT :

Shekhar B. Saraf, J.

1. Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel appearing along with learned counsel, Ms. Saumya Srivastava and Sri Ami Tandon for the petitioner and Sri Naveen Chand Gupta, learned counsel appearing along with learned counsel, Sri Gopal Varma, for the Union of India.

2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the writ-petitioner has sought the following prayers along with certain ancillary reliefs:

"(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI or any other appropriate writ for quashing the Impugned Assessment Order dated 04.02.2025 bearing Reference No: ZD090225039501M passed under Section 74(9) of CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 by the Deputy Commissioner [Respondent No. 5] as well as the Impugned Demand Notice issued in pursuance to the Impugned Order dated 04.02.2025 passed under Section 74 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 against the Petitioner relating to financial year 2017-2018.

(ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ commanding/directing the Respondents not to recover tax, interest and penalty imposed upon the Petitioner in pursuance to the Demand Notice and Impugned Order dated 04.02.2025 bearing Reference No: ZD090225039501M passed by the Deputy Commissioner [Respondent No. 5] against the Petitioner."

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner went into a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as CIRP), on October 10, 2020. A Resolution Professional was appointed on the same day and thereafter proceedings continued before the National Company Law Tribunal (in brevity NCLT). As per the procedure, the creditors were asked to submit their claims before the Resolution Professional. Specific notice was also sent to G.S.T. Department at Noida by the Resolution Professional to the/of the petitioner. The impugned order, with regard to the Assessment Year 2017-18 was passed by the respondent No. 5 on February 4, 2025. On 19.07.2022, the Resolution Plan was approved by the NCLT.

4. Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, to buttress his argument that once the Resolution Plan has been approved by the NCLT, the G.S.T. Department cannot create further dues by way of passing orders, has relied upon the following judgments, viz. (i) Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons (P) Ltd. Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd., reported in [SC] [2021] 126 Taxmann.com 132/166 SCL 237 (SC), (ii) N.S. Papers Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others [Writ Tax No. 408 of 2021, decided on December 11, 2024], (iii) Vaibhav Goyal & Another Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Another [Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2022, decided on March 20, 2025] (SC) and (iv) Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. Through Authorised Signatory Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Others [2019] 16 S.C.R. 275]

5. This Court, in Writ Tax No. 408 of 2021 [ M/S NS Papers Limited And Another Vs. Union of India Through Secretary and Others ], after dealing with a catena of judgments rendered by the Supreme Court and also other High Courts held as follows:

"11. He further submits that if proceedings under the Act could be initiated, continued with and culminated during the course of CIRP and institution of Moratorium u/s 14 of the Code, the following may also kindly be considered, for these have a bearing on the fact that income tax proceedings should not get shadowed or extinguished merely by the institution of CRIP and passage of a moratorium order, unless the proceedings were cle