Page 76 - GSTL_18th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 3

290 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 37
CASES CITED
Assistant Commissioner v. Binani Industries Ltd. — Civil Appeal No. 5889 of 2019
(Diary No. 1920 of 2019), decided on 26-7-2019 by Supreme Court — Referred ................... [Para 8]
Commissioner v. Binani Industries Ltd. — Civil Appeal Nos. 630-634 of 2020
(Diary No. 21866 of 2019), decided on 24-1-2020 by Supreme Court — Referred ................. [Para 8]
Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta
— 2019 (16) SCALE 319 — Relied on ............................................................................. [Paras 14, 19, 20]
Rajputana Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. — Civil Appeal No. 10998 of 2018,
decided on 19-11-2018 by Supreme Court — Referred ......................................................... [Paras 5, 8]
Rajputana Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. — Order dated 14-11-2018
in Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 188/2018 by National Company Law
Appellate Tribunal — Referred ................................................................................................. [Paras 5, 8]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Arnab Roy
and Ms. Aditi Vaishnav for Lokesh Mathur, for the
Petitioner.
Shri Rajvendra Saraswat, for the Respondent.
[Order per : Sandeep Mehta, J.]. - The writ petitioner Ultra Tech
Nathdwara Cement Ltd. has approached this Court by way of the instant writ
petition being aggrieved of the demands raised vide notice dated 11-2-2019
(Annex. 10), letter dated 7-9-2018 (Annex. 11), order dated 20-3-2019 (Annex. 12),
notice dated 6-3-2019 (Annex. 13), notice dated 8-3-2019 (Annex. 14), notice dated
29-3-2019 (Annex. 15), notice dated 29-3-2019 (Annex. 16), notice dated 10-4-2019
(Annex. 18), order dated 9-4-2019 (Annex. 19), two notices dated 11-6-2019
(Annex. 20) issued by the respondent Central Goods and Services Tax Depart-
ment, Govt. of India whereby the petitioner was called upon to pay Goods and
Services Tax (G.S.T.) for the period before it took over a company named M/s.
Binani Cements Ltd. A restraint order is also sought for against the respondents
from raising any further demands or from proceeding with any coercive steps so
far as dues incurred in relation to the period prior to the transfer date on which
the petitioner took over the company M/s. Binani Cements in proceedings under
the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘IBC’ for
brevity).
2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the case are that a
company named Binani Cement suffered huge losses and was unable to pay the
debts to the Financial Creditor i.e. Bank of Baroda, which preferred an insolvency
application being Company Petition (IB) No. 359/KB/2017 under Section 7 of the
Insolvency Bankruptcy Code 2016 before the National Company Law Tribunal,
Kolkata Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘NCLT’ for brevity). A Corporate Insol-
vency Resolution Process (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘CIRP’ for brevity) was
initiated by the NCLT under the provisions of the IBC 2016. Shri Vijay Kumar V.
Iyer was appointed as the Insolvency Resolution Professional and his appoint-
ment was affirmed by the Committee of Creditors (hereinafter to be referred to
as ‘COC’ for brevity) constituted under the provisions of IBC vide its meeting
dated 22-8-2017. Acting under the provisions of the IBC, the Resolution Profes-
sional invited prospective resolution applicants to stake a bid for the company
facing insolvency proceedings. The petitioner company was one of the resolution
applicants in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. After reviewing and
comparing the resolution plans received, the COC came to the conclusion that the
resolution plan of the petitioner company Ultra Tech was the best one equipped
to achieve the purpose of the IBC i.e. the maximization of the value of the assets.
In the meeting of the COC held on 28-5-2018, the resolution plan submitted by
GST LAW TIMES  18th June 2020  76