Upon approval of a resolution plan by the adjudicating authority, all claims not included in the plan, including statutory dues, stand frozen and extinguished as part of the clean slate principle, thereby binding all creditors and government authorities to the approved resolution terms.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India r/w the provision under Section 3, 39 and 53 of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 seeking below mentioned relief/s:-

“7 (A) that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or mandamus or a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction

(1) quashing and setting aside order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, State of Gujarat in Appeal No.35 of 2024 (at Annexure A) confirming order dated 01.12.2023 passed by the Collector and Additional Superintendent of Stamps, Gandhinagar, Gujarat in Case No. Stamp/Vigilance/419/2022/41311 (at Annexure B);

(ii) commanding the Respondents the refund the amount of Rs. 1,74,05,200/- paid by the Petitioner with interest at the rate of 15% p. a. from the date of its deposit till payment;

(B) that pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay order dated 11.06.2024 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, State of Gujarat in Appeal No.35 of 2024 (at Annexure A) and order dated 01.12.2023 passed by the Collector and Additional Superintendent of Stamps, Gandhinagar, Gujarat in Case No. Stamp/Vigilance/419/2022/41311 (at Annexure B);

(C) For costs

(D) For such other and further reliefs as the circumstances may require.”

2. The facts giving rise to present petition are that the demand for stamp duty in the present petition pertains to two instruments. The first is a Supplemental Facility and Hypothecation Deed dated 16.05.2018, executed in continuation of an earlier Deed of Hypothecation dated 01.06.2017. Under the original deed, RBL Bank Limited had sanctioned credit facilities up to Rs. 280 crores, comprising primarily non-fund-based facilities with a sub-limit of Rs. 50 crores as fund-based facilities. Appropriate stamp duty of Rs. 8,00,000/- was duly paid on the original deed. The supplemental deed merely modified the sub-limit by increasing the fund-based facility from Rs. 50 crores to Rs. 280 crores, without altering the total sanctioned amount. Stamp duty of Rs. 400/- was paid on this supplemental deed. However, the authorities treated it as a fresh instrument and demanded deficit stamp duty of Rs. 7,99,600/-.

2.1 The second instrument is a Deed of Hypothecation dated 14.12.2018 executed in favour of Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC, creating a subordinate charge over the hypothecated assets. The deed only recognized prior charges of existing secured creditors and did not create any fresh charge in their favour. Stamp duty of Rs. 500/- was paid on this instrument. Nevertheless, the authorities treated it as creating separate charges in favour of all existing secured creditors and raised a demand of Rs. 71,99,500/- as deficit stamp duty.

2.2 Meanwhile, insolvency proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner in 2021 under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and a resolution plan came to be approved on 10.02.2023. The approved plan expressly provided that all claims, including statutory dues and contingent liabilities not forming part of the resolution plan, would stand extinguished. No claim towards deficit stamp duty was filed during the insolvency process.

2.3 Despite this, the stamp authorities initiated proceedings in June 2023 by issuing notices for recovery of alleged deficit stamp duty and penalty. The Petitioner responded, contending that such claims stood e