Page 75 - GSTL_18th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 3

2020 ] ULTRA TECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 289
5. However, in view of the fact that there is a recommendation of GST
Council that till 31st of March, 2018 the demand of an E-way Bill will not be
made. The demand itself and the consequential demand of cash security is not
justified.
6. We therefore, direct the respondents to release the goods of the peti-
tioner forthwith subject to deposit of security to the extent of 50% of the value of
goods in the shape of other than cash or bank guarantee, which will abide by
penalty proceedings.
7. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
No costs.
_________

2020 (37) G.S.T.L. 289 (Raj.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.
ULTRA TECH NATHDWARA CEMENT LTD.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9480 of 2019, decided on 7-4-2020
Recovery of GST dues under Insolvency Bankruptcy Code vis-à-vis
other creditors - Demand prior to taking over of company under liquidation
not legal - Approval of Resolution plan for revival of dying industry - Demand
- Financial creditors to be given a precedence in the ratio of payments when
resolution plan is being finalized in view of the stance of Finance Minister
before the upper house of the Parliament - No right of audience given in reso-
lution proceedings to operational creditors viz. Central Government or State
Government as the case may be - Evaluation of all dues and liabilities as they
exist on the date of finalization of the resolution plan left in the exclusive do-
main of the resolution professional with the approval of the Committee of
Creditors (COC) - Resolution plan approved by the COC binding on the De-
partment - Approved resolution plan affirmed by NCLAT and thereafter by
Supreme Court - As per the resolution plan, rights of the respondent GST De-
partment secured to the extent of ` 72 crores odd and already deposited by pe-
titioner - Demand raised by respondent for the period prior to the date on
which, petitioner-company took over the company under liquidation, i.e.,
Binani Cement Ltd. after the resolution plan was finalized and approved, to-
tally illegal - Section 31 of Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016. [paras 18, 20, 21]
Strictures against GST officials - High Court expressed its serious res-
ervation on the approach of the concerned Officers of GST in persisting with
the demands raised from petitioner in gross ignorance of the pertinent state-
ment made by Finance Minister before Parliament and the amendment
brought around in Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Authorities should
have adopted a pragmatic approach and immediately withdrawn the demands
rather than indulging in a totally frivolous litigation, thereby unnecessarily
adding to the overflowing dockets of cases in the Courts. [para 24]
Petition allowed
GST LAW TIMES  18th June 2020  75