Case Law Details
Case Name : National Plywood Industries Ltd. Vs Union of India And Anr. (Gauhati High Court)
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
All High Courts Guwahati High Court
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
National Plywood Industries Ltd. Vs Union of India And Anr. (Gauhati High Court)
In the given case the issue under consideration is whether the order of moratorium of the National Company Law Tribunal also covers the proceeding pending before the GST authorities under the GST Act 2017?
The Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal, Guwahati Bench had passed the order dated 26.08.2019 in respect of the bankruptcy case of the assessee wherein they are liable to cer Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
Author Bio
OFFHAND
Operative Portion of the HC’s Writ :
Q
9. From the order dated 15.1.2019, it is discernible that the aspect as to whether a pending proceeding before GST authority is also a proceeding as provided in Section 14- (1) (a) has not been examined by the Commissioner of GST and consequently the implication thereof i.e. if it is a proceeding whether the order of moratorium would also cover the said proceeding, has also not been looked into.
10. Accordingly, THE ORDER DATED 15.11.2019 IS HEREBY SET ASIDE and the matter IS REMANDED back FOR A FRESH CONSIDERTATION BY EXAMINING the aspect as to whether the order of moratorium of the National Company Law Tribunal also covers the proceeding pending before the GST authorities under the GST Act 2017.
11. THE REQUIRED CONSIDERATION BE MADE WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF A CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS ORDER.
UQ
(FONT supplied) To focus on, – Points of Poser :
A) As read and understood, the impugned ORDER having been set aside, has ceased to be in operation; and not to be abided by.
B) As per the HC ‘s direction the Authority is expected to consider afresh by examining the aspect omitted to be covered. And , per para. 11., the Authority has been given one month time for doing so.
What then – is seemingly left unclear ?!
KEY Note: May have to await report on further developments ; meanwhile, it is anybody’s guess whether in the interim it was open to , hence the GST authorities could have proceeded to pursue further steps on own whims and acted to complicate and muddle up the state of affairs to the prejudice of the concerned having vested interested interests – Anyone with like thoughts, to spare and share ?!
courtesy