# M/s Arena Superstructures Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 342
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-21
- **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 1716 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Sarraf, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-arena-superstructures-private-limited-v-union-of-india-ors-53129
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Civil Law - Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, 2016 - Section 31 - Central Goods
and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 74(9)
- Writ of Certiorari - Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process - Approved Resolution Plan -
Extinguishment of Pre-CIRP Claims - Prohibition
on Post-Approval Demands.
Held:

The petitioner, under Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process (CIRP) since 10.10.2020,
challenged an assessment order and demand
notice dated 04.02.2025 under Section 74(9)
of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017, for the
financial year 2017-18, issued after the NCLT
approved its Resolution Plan on 19.07.2022.
The GST Department, notified during CIRP
and having filed claims before the Resolution
Professional, raised new claims post-approval.
The Court held that Section 31 of the IBC,
2016, extinguishes all pre-CIRP statutory dues
not included in the approved Resolution Plan
upon NCLT approval, as established by
Supreme Court precedents. The impugned
order and notice, by imposing new liabilities,
violated the IBC's clean slate principle for
resolution
applicants.
Citing
*Ghanshyam
Mishra* and *Vaibhav Goyal*, the Court
quashed the assessment order and demand
notice as legally unsustainable, protecting the
resolution
process
from
post-approval
disruptions.

Writ petition allowed; assessment order
and demand notice dated 04.02.2025
quashed.

Case Law Discussed:

## Text

342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mandatory on the part of the seller to
download the complete e-way bill once the
goods are put in transit. Only downloading
Part A of e-way bill and non filling of Part
B would not absolve the liability under the
Act.

15. No case for interference is made
out.

16. The writ petition fails and is
hereby dismissed.
----------

(2025) 4 ILRA 342
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARRAF, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ Tax No. 1716 of 2025

M/s Arena Superstructures Private
Limited ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ami Tandon, Rahul Agarwal, Saumya
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Dhananjay Awasthi

Civil Law - Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code, 2016 - Section 31 - Central Goods
and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 74(9)
- Writ of Certiorari - Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process - Approved Resolution Plan -
Extinguishment of Pre-CIRP Claims - Prohibition
on Post-Approval Demands.
Held:

The petitioner, under Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process (CIRP) since 10.10.2020,
challenged an assessment order and demand
notice dated 04.02.2025 under Section 74(9)
of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017, for the
financial year 2017-18, issued after the NCLT
approved its Resolution Plan on 19.07.2022.
The GST Department, notified during CIRP
and having filed claims before the Resolution
Professional, raised new claims post-approval.
The Court held that Section 31 of the IBC,
2016, extinguishes all pre-CIRP statutory dues
not included in the approved Resolution Plan
upon NCLT approval, as established by
Supreme Court precedents. The impugned
order and notice, by imposing new liabilities,
violated the IBC's clean slate principle for
resolution
applicants.
Citing
*Ghanshyam
Mishra* and *Vaibhav Goyal*, the Court
quashed the assessment order and demand
notice as legally unsustainable, protecting the
resolution
process
from
post-approval
disruptions.

Writ petition allowed; assessment order
and demand notice dated 04.02.2025
quashed.

Case Law Discussed:

1. *Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons (P) Ltd. Vs
Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.*,
[2021] 126 Taxmann.com 132 (SC) / 166 SCL
237 - Pre-CIRP dues not included in the
Resolution Plan are extinguished upon NCLT
approval under Section 31 of IBC.

2. *N.S. Papers Ltd. Vs U.O.I.*, Writ Tax No.
408 of 2021, (2024) AHC 78943 - PostResolution
Plan
tax
claims
are
invalid;
assessment orders issued after CIRP approval
4 All. M/s Arena Superstructures Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors
343
are quashed as contrary to IBC's clean slate
principle.

3.
*Vaibhav
Goyal
&
anr.
Vs
Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax & anr.*, Civil
Appeal No. 49 of 2022, (2025) SCC OnLine SC
456 - Statutory dues for pre-CIRP periods, not
part of the Resolution Plan, are extinguished;
post-approval demands are unenforceable.

4. *Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India
Ltd. Vs Satish Kumar Gupta & ors.*, [2019] 16
SCR 275 - Approved Resolution Plan bars new
or undecided claims to ensure a clean slate for
the resolution applicant.

Observation:

The Court observed that the GST Department,
despite being informed of the CIRP and
participating
by
filing
claims,
issued
the
impugned assessment order and demand notice
post-NCLT
approval
on
19.07.2022,
contravening the IBC's framework. Supreme
Court rulings in *Ghanshyam Mishra* and
*Vaibhav Goyal* clarify that pre-CIRP claims not
included in the Resolution Plan are extinguished
upon approval, ensuring a clean slate for the
resolution applicant. The department's postapproval action for 2017-18 dues was an
impermissible attempt to impose unforeseen
liabilities, undermining the IBC's objective of a
fresh start. The Court emphasized that such
claims disrupt the resolution process and cannot
be sustained.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned
counsel appearing along with learned
counsel, Ms. Saumya Srivastava and Sri
Ami Tandon for the petitioner and Sri
Naveen Chand Gupta, learned counsel
appearing along with learned counsel, Sri
Gopal Varma, for the Union of India.

This is a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, wherein
the writ-petitioner has sought the following
prayers along with certain ancillary reliefs:

"(i) Issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction in the nature of
CERTIORARI or any other appropriate
writ
for
quashing
the
Impugned
Assessment
Order
dated
04.02.2025
bearing Reference No: ZD090225039501M
passed
under
Section
74(9)
of
CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 by the Deputy
Commissioner [Respondent No. 5] as well
as the Impugned Demand Notice issued in
pursuance to the Impugned Order dated
04.02.2025 passed under Section 74 of the
CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 against the
Petitioner relating to financial year 20172018.

(ii) Issue an appropriate writ,
order or direction in the nature of
MANDAMUS or any other appropriate
writ
commanding/directing
the
Respondents not to recover tax, interest and
penalty imposed upon the Petitioner in
pursuance to the Demand Notice and
Impugned Order dated 04.02.2025 bearing
Reference No: ZD090225039501M passed
by the Deputy Commissioner [Respondent
No. 5] against the Petitioner."

3. The case of the petitioner is that the
petitioner went into a Corporate Insolvency
Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to
as CIRP), on October 10, 2020. A
Resolution Professional was appointed on
the same day and thereafter proceedings
continued before the National Company
Law Tribunal (in brevity NCLT). As per
the procedure, the creditors were asked to
submit their claims before the Resolution
344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Professional. Specific notice was also sent
to G.S.T. Department at Noida by the
Resolution Professional to the/of the
petitioner. The impugned order, with regard
to the Assessment Year 2017-18 was
passed by the respondent No. 5 on
February 4, 2025. On 19.07.2022, the
Resolution Plan was approved by the
NCLT.

4. Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner, to
buttress his argument that once the
Resolution Plan has been approved by the
NCLT, the G.S.T. Department cannot
create further dues by way of passing
orders, has relied upon the following
judgments, viz. (i) Ghanshyam Mishra
and Sons (P) Ltd. Vs. Edelweiss Asset
Reconstruction Co. Ltd., reported in [SC]
[2021] 126 Taxmann.com 132/166 SCL
237 (SC), (ii) N.S. Papers Ltd. Vs. Union
of India and Others [Writ Tax No. 408 of
2021, decided on December 11, 2024], (iii)
Vaibhav Goyal & Another Vs. Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax & Another
[Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2022, decided on
March 20, 2025] (SC) and (iv) Committee
of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd.
Through
Authorised
Signatory
Vs.
Satish Kumar Gupta & Others [2019] 16
S.C.R. 275].

5. This Court, in Writ Tax No. 408 of
2021 [M/S NS Papers Limited And
Another Vs. Union of India Through
Secretary and Others], after dealing with a
catena of judgments rendered by the
Supreme Court and also other High Courts
held as follows:

"11. He further submits that if
proceedings under the Act could be
initiated, continued with and culminated
during the course of CIRP and institution of
Moratorium u/s 14 of the Code, the
following may also kindly be considered,
for these have a bearing on the fact that
income tax proceedings should not get
shadowed or extinguished merely by the
institution of CRIP and passage of a
moratorium order, unless the proceedings
were clearly inconsistent with or repugnant
to any provisions of the Code, which is not
the case here.

12. Upon considering the facts
and circumstances of the case, we are of the
view that the arguments raised by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents is without any merit on two
counts. Firstly, it is clear by the letter dated
March 8, 2021 that the petitioner had
informed the Income Tax Authorities with
regard to approval of resolution plan.
Secondly, the department itself had filed a
claim before the Resolution Professional,
and accordingly, the argument that the
department was not aware of the IBC
proceedings holds no water.

13. Even assuming that the
department was not informed about the
proceedings, the law is very clear as
expounded in the judgments cited above.
The resolution applicant cannot be saddled
with new claims once a resolution plan has
been approved.

14.
The
argument
that
an
assessment that has been kept pending for a
prior period and is quantified subsequent to
the approval of the Resolution Plan is an
argument in sophistry. If this argument is
accepted then all authorities would be in a
position to keep assessment/re-assessment
pending till completion of the Resolution
Plan, and thereafter, culminate the same
and saddle the successful Resolution
Applicant with an unknown burden. Such
an action cannot be countenanced as the
same would be an anathema to the
fundamental principles of the moratorium
4 All. M/s Arena Superstructures Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors
345
provided under the Code. The law cannot
be read in a manner wherein the basic
structure of the Code is breached by
hindering the flow of the same by creation
of roadblocks and dams ? the underlying
principle of the Code is to give a fresh start
to the Resolution Applicant. Any new
liability being fastened after the approval of
the Resolution Plan would inherently and
palpably be illegal and go beyond the
Lakshman Rekha of the Code.

15. In light of the above, the
impugned assessment order dated April 28,
2021 is quashed and set aside. In the event
any penalty proceedings have been initiated
by the department, the writ petitioner shall
be at liberty to challenge the same in
accordance with law."

6. The above view has been fortified
by the Supreme Court in Vaibhav Goyal &
Another Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Income Tax & Another [Civil Appeal No.
49 of 2022, decided on March 20, 2025]
(SC).
The
relevant
paragraphs
are
delineated below:

"8. In view of the declaration of
law made by this Court, all the dues
including the statutory dues owed to the
Central Government, if not a part of the
Resolution Plan, shall stand extinguished
and no proceedings could be continued in
respect of such dues for the period prior to
the date on which the adjudicating
authority grants its approval under Section
31 of the IB Code. In this case, the income
tax dues of the CD for the assessment years
2012-13 and 2013-14 were not part of the
approved Resolution Plan. Therefore, in
view of sub-section (1) of Section 31, as
interpreted by this Court in the above
decision, the dues of the first respondent
owed by the CD for the assessment years
2012-13 and 2013-14 stand extinguished.

12. Once the Resolution Plan is
approved by the NCLT, no belated claim
can be included therein that was not made
earlier. If such demands are taken into
consideration, the appellants will not be in
a position to recommence the business of
the CD on a clean slate. On this aspect, we
may note what is held in paragraph 107 of
the decision of this Court in the case of
Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel
India Ltd. [Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2022].
Paragraph 107 reads thus:

"107. For the same reason, the
impugned NCLAT judgment [Standard
Chartered Bank v. Satish Kumar Gupta,
2019 SCC OnLine NCLAT 388] in holding
that claims that may exist apart from those
decided on merits by the resolution
professional and by the Adjudicating
Authority/Appellate Tribunal can now be
decided by an appropriate forum in terms
of Section 60(6) of the Code, also militates
against the rationale of Section 31 of the
Code. A successful resolution applicant
cannot
suddenly
be
faced
with
"undecided" claims after the resolution
plan submitted by him has been accepted
as this would amount to a hydra head
popping up which would throw into
uncertainty amounts payable by a
prospective resolution applicant who
would successfully take over the business
of the corporate debtor. All claims must
be submitted to and decided by the
resolution
professional
so
that
a
prospective resolution applicant knows
exactly what has to be paid in order that
it may then take over and run the
business of the corporate debtor. This
the successful resolution applicant does
on a fresh slate, as has been pointed out
by us hereinabove. For these reasons,
NCLAT judgment must also be set aside on
this count."
(emphasis added)
346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. The additional demands made
by the first respondent in respect of the
assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 will
operate as roadblocks in implementing the
approved Resolution Plan, and appellants
will not be able to restart the operations of
the CD on a clean slate.

14. We, therefore, hold that the
demands raised by the first respondent
against the CD in respect of assessment
years 2012-13 and 2013-14 are invalid and
cannot be enforced. We set aside the
impugned orders of NCLT and NCLAT
and allow the appeal accordingly."

7. In view of the above law laid down
by the Supreme Court, we are of the view
that the principle is crystal clear that once
Resolution Plan has been approved by the
NCLT, all other creditors are barred from
raising their claims subsequently, as the
same would disrupt the entire resolution
process.
The
Supreme
Court
has
categorically held the same as indicated
above.

8. We accordingly find no reason to
keep
this
matter
pending
and
accordingly the impugned Assessment
Order
dated
04.02.2025
bearing
Reference
No:
ZD090225039501M
passed
under
Section
74(9)
of
CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 by the Deputy
Commissioner [Respondent No. 5] as
well as the Impugned Demand Notice
issued in pursuance to the Impugned
Order dated 04.02.2025 passed under
Section 74 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017
against the Petitioner relating to financial
year 2017-2018, are quashed.

9. The writ petition is accordingly
allowed.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 346
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 1133 of 2025

Javed Ahmad @ Javed & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sajjad Hussain, Eshan Garg, Prachi Arya

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Mohd. Saud Khan, Prachi Arya

(A) Criminal Law - Fraud on Court -
Quashing
of
Criminal
Proceedings
-
Concealment of material facts and nonimpleadment of necessary injured victims
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Sections 482 & 362 - Where order under
Section 482 CrPC is obtained by fraud,
same is liable to be recalled despite bar
under Section 362 - Fraud on the Court
vitiates judicial proceedings - Deliberate
non-impleadment
of
injured
parties
amounts to misconduct and abuse of
process - Application under Section 482
CrPC, based on concealment and fraud,
cannot be sustained and the order passed
therein is liable to be recalled with costs.
(Para - 3,6,8,14,24,25,26)

(B) Words or Phrases - "Actus Curiae
neminem gravabit" - The act of Court shall
prejudice no one and in such a situation,
the Court is under obligation to undo the
wrong done to a party by the act of the
Court - "Fraud vitiates every solemn
proceeding" - No right can be claimed by a
fraudster on the ground of technicalities.
(Para - 15, 23)

(C) Practice & Procedure - Counsel's duty
to assist the Court fairly - non-disclosure
of material facts amounts to serious