AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
A. Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.223/2025
In Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.223/2025 which has been preferred by the Appellant, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Vijaypura, has challenged the impugned order of 10.02.2025, that was passed by the Ld. NCLT Hyderabad bench in IA (IBC)/2295/2024, that was rendered in the proceedings of CP (IB) No. 308/7/HDB/2022.
The said application IA (IBC)/2295/2024 was preferred by the Respondent herein, Sai Ramesh Kanuparthi, RP of M/s. Gayathri Projects Limited under Section 60 (5) of the I & B Code, 2016, to be read with Rule 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016, wherein he had prayed to declare, (a) the order passed by Assistant Commissioner (CT) dated 10.04.2024 levying a demand under GST Act, 2017, and the consequential recovery proceedings dated 13.07.2024 under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 issued to the Manager, State Bank of India as to be illegal, (b) to set aside the order of Joint Commissioner (CT) (Appeals), Belagavi (Appellant No. 2 herein) dated 15.10.2024, rejecting the appeal preferred by the CD against the order levying the said demand. The said application was taken up by the Ld. Tribunal and the impugned order dated 10.02.2025 had passed in the following manner: -
"In view of aforesaid discussion, both the IAs are disposed of with the following directions:
a)The tax demand raised for the financial year 2018-19 against the JV is unenforceable during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) as it would impact the assets of the Corporate Debtor, which are protected under the IBC moratorium provisions.
b)The proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 1 against the JV are non-executable during the subsistence of the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC. Consequently, the Recovery Notice dated 13.07.2024, issued in Form GST DRC-13 to the Manager, State Bank of India, Siddeshwara Road, Athani Branch, is suspended with immediate effect."
When the matter was taken up today, the Ld. Counsel of the parties have submitted that, owing to the fact that the company petition itself as preferred before the Ld. NCLT, Hyderabad Bench, by virtue of which CIRP was commenced against the CD, has been withdrawn, no lis survives as of now.
Owing to the fact that the company petition has been withdrawn, all orders, passed on the IAs as referred to herein above will stand merged with the culmination of proceedings as a consequence of dismissal of CP (IB) No. 308/7/HDB/2022 as withdrawn.
Hence, this company appeal too would be rendered infructuous owing to the aforesaid order. The same is accordingly 'dismissed' as having been rendered 'infructuous'.
B. Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.221/2025
In Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.221/2025, the Appellant yet again questions the impugned order dated 10.02.2025, that was passed on IA (IBC)/2388/2024, that was preferred in CP (IB) No. 308/7/HDB/2022. In the IA (IBC)/2388/2024, the RP, Respondent herein had prayed for suspension of the recovery notice dated 13.07.2024 and for an order of injunction against Appellants 1 & 2 herein not to take any coercive action against the CD till disposal of IA (IBC)/2295/2024. Ld. NCLT, Hyderabad Bench had proceeded to decide IA (IBC)/2388/2024, and IA (IBC)/2295/2024 together suspending the recovery notice dated 13.07.2024. However, the said company petition referred above has already been dismissed as withdrawn.
Hence, this company appeal too would stand 'dismissed' as having been rendered 'infructuous', owing to the fact that since the company petition has been withdrawn, hence under law, all interlocutory orders would stand merged with the withdrawal of the company petition. Hence, no adjudication on merits is required to be made.