Msp Metallics Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors
High Court
25 May 2023 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_appellate_side
Parties
Msp Metallics Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors
Date of order
25 May 2023
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Msp Metallics Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors, the High Court (2023) decided the matter.
Decision: Accordingly, the impugned proceeding is quashed.The instant writ petition is accordingly, disposed of.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if appliedfor, be given to the parties on usual undertakings.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
07 25.05.2023AGM/NB Ct. 07
WPA 12285 of 2023
MSP Metallics Limited
Vs.
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.
Ms. Sutapa Sanyal,
Mr. Debrup Bhattacharya,
Ms. Shusna Santra. …for the petitioner.
Ms. Smita Das De.…for the respondents.
Affidavit of service and supplementary affidavit betaken on record.
The petitioner is an income tax assessee.
By a letter dated 29[th] June, 2022 and 30[th] June, 2022,the petitioner informed the respondent no.1 that the Central Bankof India filed a petition on 27.01.2022 against the petitioner underSection 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, (IBC) seekingInitiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
The prayer for CIRP was admitted by the NCLT andone Meena Sureka was appointed as a Resolution Professional.It is the case of the petitioner that once a Corporate InsolvencyResolution Process is admitted, no fresh proceeding either civilor criminal be initiated against the petitioner and the pendingproceeding is required to be stayed in view of Section 238 of theIBC, the provisions of IBC has overriding effect upon all otherlaws inconsistent therewith. The petitioner also raised a disputeregarding receipt of an amount of Rs.3,00,00,000/- (rupees threecrores) from such entities stated in paragraph 4 ii.
Thus, the cause of action to file the instant writ petitionarose when by an order dated 30[th] July, 2022 under Section148(A)(d) of the IT Act, the respondent no.1 held that thereply/submission of your petitioner was not tenable and notsatisfactory and notice was issued under Section 148 of theIncome Tax Act.
In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, theimpugned proceeding including the aforesaid impugned orderand subsequent proceedings including the order dated 15[th] May,2023 is not sustainable in law and is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the impugned proceeding is quashed.The instant writ petition is accordingly, disposed of.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if appliedfor, be given to the parties on usual undertakings.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.