JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. These are three writ petitions seeking quashing of respective demand cum Show Cause Notices and the consequential impugned orders. The details of the same are tabulated as under:

3. The background giving rise to these petitions is that the Petitioner was involved in the construction industry and owing to certain financial difficulties which it faced, it underwent insolvency proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter, ‘NCLT’).

4. The Union Bank of India, as a financial creditor, had filed an application being CP(IB) No. 190(PB)/2017 under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter, ‘IBC’) in June, 2017.

5. As per Section 16 of the IBC, initially, an Interim Resolution Professional (hereinafter, ‘IRP’) was appointed. Claims were thereafter called and the Committee of Creditors, on 12th June, 2018 confirmed the IRP to be the Resolution Professional (hereinafter ‘RP’).Subsequently, an application bearing CA/1346/PB/2018, for confirmation of the appointment of RP was allowed by NCLT, Delhi, vide order dated 18th December, 2018.

6. In the meantime, the GST registration of the Petitioner got cancelled on 22nd July, 2020 and during the course of insolvency proceedings the GST department also filed its claims to the tune of Rs. 4,02,30,448/- before the RP.

7. On the basis of the Expressions of interest (hereinafter, ‘EOI’) that were received by the RP, the claim of the GST department was crystallised to an amount of Rs.1,94,26,381/-.

8. Eventually, the resolution plan of one M/s S. A. Infrastructure Consultants Private Limited was approved by the NCLT, Delhi, on 11th June, 2024. The new management has since taken over the Petitioner company.

9. In the meantime, the impugned orders were issued to the Petitioner on 14th November, 2024 and 25th November, 2024, seeking to recover the sums tabulated above, along with interest.

10. In respect of these demands which are impugned before the Court, an interim order was passed on 21st February, 2025 in the following terms.

“5. Prima facie, we find merit in the challenge which stands raised bearing in mind the undisputed fact of the Resolution Plan having been approved under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016[“IBC”] coupled with the fact that the Goods and Services Tax Department had been duly placed on notice in the course of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process [“CIRP”].

6. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that Ms. Jha, learned senior counsel places reliance upon the judgments in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta[(2020) 8 SCC 531] and Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited [(2021) 9 SCC657]. Matter requires consideration.

7. Accordingly and till the next date of listing, there shall be stay of the impugned orders dated 14 November 2024 and 25 November 2024.”

11. The submission of Ms. Kavita Jha, ld. Senior Counsel is that the impugned demands would be untenable, as they relate to the period prior to the final approval of the resolution plan by the NCLT, Delhi on 11th June, 2024 and the claims of the GST Department were already considered and made part of the resolution process. Hence, no fresh demands could have been raised in respect of the previous periods after the approval of the resolution plan.

12. Mr. R. Ramachandran, ld. SSC, on the other hand merely states that the orders are only meant to crystallize the amounts and no steps for recovery have been taken by the Department.

13. The Court has heard the ld. Counsels for the parties.

14. The order dated 11th June