2025(07)LCX0203

Lalwani Ferro Alloys Limited

Versus

Assistant Commissioner

WPA 13913 of 2025 decided on 16-07-2025

16.07.2025
sayandeep
Sl. No. 13
Ct. No. 05

WPA 13913 of 2025

M/s Lalwani Ferro Alloys ltd.
Vs.
Assistant Commissioner, CGST & CX, Park Street
Division Kolkata South Commissionerate, GST Bhawan
& ors.

Mr. Sandip Choraria
Mr. Sukalpa Seal
Mr. Akash Chakraborty
Mr. Rishav Manna
                                          …. for the petitioner

Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Anurag Roy
Mr. Anindya Kanan
Mr. Aayush Sharma
                                     …..for the respondents

1. Challenging the order passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) for the tax period 2017-2018, the instant writ petition has been filed. Admittedly, the petitioner’s supplier M/s Cosmic Ferro Alloys Limited had declared the supplies made to the petitioner in GSTR 1 but they failed to pay GST on the same by not filing GSTR 3B returns. This resulted in reversal for input tax credit (ITC) availed by the petitioner having regard to the provisions contained in Section 16(2)(c) of the said Act.

2. Mr. Choraria, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would contend that since, the M/s Cosmic Ferro Alloys Limited had undergone an insolvency process and a resolution plan had been approved under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code) by an order dated 11th October, 2018, the petitioner should not be made liable for the infraction of Section 16(2)(c) especially by reasons of the respondents having not lodged any claim with the resolution professional and the liability of M/s Cosmic Ferro Alloys Limited being wiped out.

3. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting that the appellate tribunal is yet to be constituted, I am of the view that the writ petition should be heard. The respondents are directed to disclose all records, inter alia, including the steps taken by the respondents to protect its interest by way of lodging claim before the resolution professional, if any.

4. The petitioner is also directed to place before this Court the resolution plan approved by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata in CP (IB) No. 596/KB/2017 on the basis whereof, the petitioner seeks immunity. Since, the demand has already been raised by the respondents and order in original dated 13th December, 2023 has been upheld, I am of the view that in the event, the petitioner deposits 10% of the tax in dispute in addition to the amount already deposited with the respondents under Section 107(6) of the said Act, within a period of 4 weeks from date, the demand raised by the respondents in furtherance to the order passed by the appellate authority shall remain stayed till disposal of the writ petition or until further order whichever is earlier.

5. Let the affidavit-in-opposition be filed within a period of six weeks from date. Reply if any thereto, be filed within a period of four weeks thereafter.

6. Liberty to mention.

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)