2026-VIL-995-DEL-CU
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-995-DEL-CU

CUSTOMS High Court Cases

Customs - Enforcement of pre-CIRP customs liabilities after approval of Resolution Plan under IBC, Binding effect of approved Resolution Plan under Section 31(1), Interplay between Customs Act and IBC provisions - Petitioner challenged the Order-in-Original contending that the liability arises from a pre-CIRP transaction and that the approved Resolution Plan became binding on all governmental authorities and that claims not submitted during CIRP stand extinguished - Whether Customs authorities can continue adjudication and enforcement of pre-CIRP customs liabilities after a Resolution Plan has been approved by the NCLT when the customs demand was not submitted as a claim by the Department during CIRP - HELD - The definition of claim under Section 3(6) IBC is wide and includes a right to payment irrespective of whether it has been adjudicated or reduced to judgment - A claim is referable to the underlying right to payment and not merely to subsequent adjudication. An underlying customs liability arising from a pre-CIRP transaction constitutes a claim independent of whether adjudicated by that date. Upon CIRP commencement, the Interim Resolution Professional is required to issue public announcement inviting claims with last date specified. The statutory scheme does not require the Corporate Debtor to individually notify every possible creditor - The responsibility of identifying and filing claim lies upon the creditor. Once statutory mechanism of public announcement is followed, creditor's failure to submit cannot be overcome by alleging absence of individual intimation - Section 31(1) IBC provides that approved Resolution Plan shall be binding on corporate debtor and all stakeholders including Central Government and authorities to whom statutory dues are owed. The legislative intent is to freeze all claims upon approval so Successful Resolution Applicant commences on clean slate. The 2019 Amendment expressly brought governmental authorities within binding effect of approved plans. Section 238 gives IBC overriding effect where inconsistency with other law - While Customs Act confers power to determine liability during CIRP, power to enforce after plan approval is circumscribed by Section 31(1). Distinction between determination and enforceability is material. Pre-CIRP unfiled claim stands extinguished upon plan approval and cannot thereafter be enforced. Creditor cannot stand outside CIRP, await adjudication post-approval and seek enforcement as this exposes successful applicant to unascertained liabilities and defeats Section 31 finality. Accordingly, Customs authorities could not after plan approval continue adjudication and enforce pre-CIRP unfiled claim in violation of Section 31(1) read with Section 238 – The Order-in-Original is quashed and set aside – The writ petition is allowed
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST Critical issues: ITC on...
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?