M/S.Vasan Healthcare Private Limited vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Tax

Held

The Court did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within 30 days from the date of the order. The Court directed that if the petitioner approaches the Appellate Authority within the stipulated time, the appeal shall be disposed of on merits. The petitioner was also directed to comply with the necessary requirement of pre-deposit under Section 107 of the GST enactment within the same period. The Court noted that the resolution plan would not apply to the period after 01.04.2022 to 01.04.2023, and that the decision in Ghashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited would not apply to the facts of the present case, citing a clarification by this Court in M/s. Tata Play Limited. No issue was expressly left undecided, but the core dispute regarding the applicability of the resolution plan was deferred to the appellate authority.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Vasan Healthcare Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) under Section 73 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017, for the financial year 2022-2023 (tax period from 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2024). The petitioner company had undergone proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. A resolution plan, approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 03.02.2023, included a clause (Serial No. 27) for the write-off of all tax dues, interest, and penalties up to the implementation date. The impugned order pertains to tax liabilities for a period that the petitioner contends is covered by the approved resolution plan.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order passed under Section 73 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017, for the financial year 2022-2023, is liable to be quashed in light of the resolution plan approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which provided for the write-off of all tax dues, interest, and penalties up to the implementation date. The petitioner argued that the resolution plan, approved by the NCLT, encompassed all tax liabilities, including those for the period in question, and therefore the demand raised by the revenue was unsustainable. The petitioner relied on the principle that a resolution plan approved under the IBC binds all creditors, including tax authorities. The respondents (revenue) contended that the resolution plan did not apply to the period after 01.04.2022 to 01.04.2023, and that the legal position had been statutorily amended. They also referred to a decision of this Court in M/s. Tata Play Limited Vs. Union of India, dated 12.06.2025, which they argued supported their position.