PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6,NEW DELHI vs. MONNET ISPAT & ENERGY LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, prevails over other laws. Section 14 of the Code imposes a moratorium on suits and proceedings against a corporate debtor once insolvency proceedings commence.
What were the facts?
The Income Tax Department filed appeals against an ITAT order concerning the tax liability of Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. However, the respondent company was undergoing insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
What were the issues?
Whether the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and its moratorium provisions override pending appeals filed by the Income Tax Department against a corporate debtor.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$-40 to 60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI V, + ITA Nos. 533/2017, 534/2017, 535/2017. 536/2017. 537/2017. 538/2017. 539/2017. 540/2017. 541/2017. 542/2017. 543/2017. 544/2017. 545/2017. 546/2017. 5472017. 548/2017. 549/2017. 550/2017. 551/2017. 552/2017 & 554/2017 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, NEW DELHI Appellant Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Vikrant A. Maheshwari, Advocate. versus MONNETISPAT & ENERGY LTD. Respondent Through: Ms. Anne Mathew, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ORDER % 04.09.2017 1. The Court has heard the learned counsel for both parties. The provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('Code') and, in particular. Section 14 thereofhas been perused. 2. It appears to the Court that Section 238 ofthe Code is categorical that the Code will apply, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in" any other law for the time being in force. Section 14(l)(a) of the Code states, inter alia, that on the 'insolvency commencement date' the ITA No. 533/2017 &connectedmatters Page1of3 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified
Adjudicating Authority (AA) shall by order declare moratorium for prohibiting "the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority." That the Code will prevail over all other statutes inconsistent therewith has been explained in the recent decision dated 31®^ August, 2017 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8337-8338/2017 {M/s. Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICIBank). 3. In the instant case, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) [which by virtue ofSection 5 (1) ofthe Code is the AA] has by its order dated 18^ July 2017 admitted the petition under Section 7 of the Code filed by the State Bank of India against the Respondent Assessee and prohibited, inter alia, "the institution of suits or continuation ofpending suits or proceedings" against the Respondent. This would include the present appeal by the Income Tax Department ('Department') against the order ofthe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in respect ofthe tax liability ofthe Respondent- Assessee. 4. Mr. Asheesh Jain, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Revenue, points out that unlike some of the earlier insolvency statutes the Code does not envisage permission being sought from the NCLT for continuation ofthe continuation ofpending proceedings against the Respondent in other fora. In the order dated 18^*^ July 2017 is clear that the moratorium continues "till the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process or until this Bench approves the resolution plan under sub-Section (1) of Section 31 or passes an order for liquidation of corporate debtor under Section 33, as the ITA No. 533/2017 & connected matters Page 2 of3
case may be." 5. Consequently, these appeals are disposed of with liberty to the Appellant- Department to revive them subject to the further orders ofthe NCLT. 6. Copy ofthe order be given dasti under the signature ofthe Court Master. SEPTEMBER 04,2017 dk ITA No. 533/2017 & connected matters S. MURAtlDHAR, J. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. Page 3 of3
More judgments on Section 238
- DCIT221, Mumbai vs Nrc Limited, MumbaiITA 1333/MUM/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- DCIT221, Mumbai vs Nrc Limited, MumbaiITA 1332/MUM/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- DCIT221, Mumbai vs Nrc Ltd, MumbaiITA 1331/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Narayan Industries Global Limited, New Delhi vs DCIT Circle 16(1), DelhiITA 8422/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Ambassador Building Solutions Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs ITO Ward 14(2), New DelhiITA 1314/DEL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed14 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026