M/S. BINANI CEMENT LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA & ORS.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court at Calcutta, considering the averments made in paragraph 22 of the petition, disposed of the appeal (ITA No.18 of 2015) and the connected applications (GA No.2 of 2019, GA No. 2722 of 2019). The court granted prayer (a) of the petition. The reasoning was based on the appellant's submission that the Resolution Plan had been sanctioned and approved, and consequently, no taxes were due, thus rendering the continuation of the appeal unnecessary. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal and applications as per the prayer.
What were the facts?
The appellant, M/s. Binani Cement Ltd., filed an appeal (ITA No.18 of 2015) before the High Court at Calcutta, along with connected applications (GA No.2 of 2019, GA No. 2722 of 2019). The appellant was the Corporate Debtor in a Resolution Plan. The Resolution Plan was subsequently sanctioned and approved. The petitioner, now in the shoes of the appellant, stated in paragraph 22 of their petition that they no longer wished to continue with the appeal because no taxes remained due and payable by them. Consequently, their tax status remained as per the returns filed by the Appellant.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal should be disposed of as withdrawn, given the sanction of a Resolution Plan and the petitioner's assertion that no taxes are due. Assessee's Contention: The assessee (appellant) argued that following the sanction of the Resolution Plan, they, as the petitioner now in the shoes of the appellant, do not wish to continue with the appeal because no taxes remain due and payable. They stated that their tax status remains as per the returns filed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the revenue. The court proceeded based on the averments made by the appellant.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
OD – 1 ORDER SHEET GA 2 of 2019 GA 2722 of 2019 ITA 18 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE M/S. BINANI CEMENT LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI The Hon’ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date : 07TH December, 2020. Appearance : Mr. A. K. Dey, Adv. …For the Appellant Mr. S. N. Dutta, Adv. Mr. A. Ganguly, Adv. For the Respondents The Court : We have perused the averments made in paragraph 22 of the petition. Paragraph 22 of the said petition is set out below : “22. The instant appeal was initiated by the appellant, the Corporate Debtor in the Resolution Plan. Pursuant to the Resolution Plan being sanctioned and approved, the petitioner, now in the shoes of the appellant, does not seek to continue with the instant appeal as no taxes remain due and payable by the petitioner. Consequently, the position of tax status remains as per returns filed by the Appellant.” In those circumstances, the appeal (ITA No.18 of 2015) and the connected applications (GA No.2 of 2019, GA No. 2722 of 2019) are disposed of by granting prayer (a) of the petition. (I. P. Mukerji, J.) (Md. Nizamuddin, J.) A Dey
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Sujit Paswan @ Sujit Pasman vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
