HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Vaibhav Goel & Anr. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 49 of 2022
2025 INSC 375; [2025] 3 S.C.R. 841 ·
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
Two-judge bench · Abhay S. Oka, J. · Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Assessment years: 2012-13, 2013-14
01 · Facts of the case
The joint resolution applicants’ plan for Tehri Iron and Steel Casting Ltd. was approved by NCLT on 21 May 2019. The plan included a contingent income-tax liability for AY 2014-15. The Department subsequently raised separate demands for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14, without having submitted claims for those years before the resolution professional. The monitoring professional challenged them. NCLT dismissed the application as frivolous with Rs 1 lakh costs; NCLAT affirmed.
Source: reported supreme court judgment / paragraphs 1-6 / PDF pages 3, 4, 5, 6
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Applying section 31(1) of the IBC and Ghanashyam Mishra, the Court held that approval binds the tax department and extinguishes pre-approval dues not forming part of the plan. The approval order’s reservation of certain statutory reliefs concerned the contingent liabilities actually described in the plan; it did not save these two omitted assessment-year demands. The Court also rejected NCLAT’s refusal to apply binding precedent merely because it had not been cited before NCLT. Unreasoned dismissal and imposition of costs were unwarranted, and belated demands would undermine the successful applicants’ ability to operate the company on the settled financial basis.
Source: reported supreme court judgment / paragraphs 6-12 / PDF pages 6, 7, 8, 9
03 · Judicial decision
The demands for AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14 were invalid and unenforceable. The Supreme Court set aside the NCLT and NCLAT orders and allowed the appeal.
Source: reported supreme court judgment / paragraphs 11-14 / PDF pages 8, 9
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In whose favour: Resolution applicants/corporate debtor; against Revenue
Appeal allowed; impugned Tribunal orders set aside; two additional tax demands held unenforceable
Tax-recovery effect of approved IBC plan decided
The ruling concerns identified pre-resolution dues omitted from the approved plan. It does not extinguish every tax liability arising after resolution or decide the separate AY2014-15 contingent liability.
Source: reported supreme court judgment / paragraphs 14 / PDF pages 9
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
For tax due diligence on a resolved company, reconcile each assessment year and demand with the submitted claims, the approved plan, its contingent-liability schedule and the approval order. A general reservation about statutory concessions should not be read apart from the liabilities to which it relates. Keep omitted pre-resolution claims distinct from liabilities expressly provided for and genuinely post-resolution tax obligations.
Source: reported supreme court judgment / paragraphs 5-8,11-14 / PDF pages 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Other governing statutes
- act
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
- sections
- 31(1); 61; 62
- role
- Section31(1) controls the treatment of the income-tax demands
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Identified source rendition: 9 PDF pages; SHA-256 beca0a80453fc13cbe5313e25b671061f45b982ee2ecdd37c3904fae5dbe3437. Original bytes preserved.
- Reported PDF pp. 1-2 are editorial headnotes; judicial text is pp. 3-9, paragraphs 1-14. No adjacent judgment is included.
- The source states different amounts for the AY 2014-15 contingent liability in paragraphs 2 and 5; that non-dispositive amount is not reproduced.
- The principal ratio is IBC section 31(1), applied directly to Income-tax Act demands. Section 154 is factual background.
- Original API URL is additional; evidence pinpoints use the reported PDF. The reported hash and page numbers must not be applied to the differently paginated official original.
- AY 2014-15 appears as a different contingent liability included in the plan, not one of the two additional demands invalidated here.
Statutory scope
Historical legal regime as considered in the source judgment; no comprehensive later-law/circular or 2025 Act equivalence check.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-04. Subsequent appeals, review proceedings, stays, reversals and later judicial treatment have not been comprehensively checked. This note is not a citator status certificate.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Identified source links
- reported supreme court judgment — PDF 9 pages
SHA-256: beca0a80453fc13cbe5313e25b671061f45b982ee2ecdd37c3904fae5dbe3437
- official original link
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.