# In the matter of M/s Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax
Department & Anr. D.B. Sales Tax Ref./rev. No. 9/2021

> HC judgment dated 2022-04-18. Citation: TCN-2022-HC-00054. This case involves a batch of Sales Tax Revisions concerning identical questions of facts and law.…

- **Court:** HC
- **Order date:** 18 Apr 2022
- **Citation:** TCN-2022-HC-00054
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/high-courts-new-delhi/ms-ultratech-nathdwara-cement-limited-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-commercial-t-f818dc34

## Summary

### Background

This case involves a batch of Sales Tax Revisions concerning identical questions of facts and law. The petitioner, M/s. UltraTech Nathdwara Cement Limited, challenged an order by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, which rejected their applications for refund of mandatory statutory pre-deposit with interest, made in connection with appeals filed before the Tax Board. The core issue revolves around the refund of pre-deposit amounts after the approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) for Binani Cement Limited, which UltraTech acquired. The GST Department continued to raise demands despite the resolution plan.

## Facts

M/s. UltraTech Nathdwara Cement Limited filed revisions against the Rajasthan Tax Board's order rejecting their refund applications for mandatory statutory pre-deposits. These pre-deposits were made by M/s. Binani Cement Limited, which later underwent insolvency proceedings under the IBC. UltraTech, as the successful resolution applicant, acquired Binani Cement. The Commercial Taxes Department had issued VAT assessment orders to Binani Cement for the period 2005-06 to 2015-16, leading to appeals before the Rajasthan Tax Board, which required mandatory pre-deposits. During the insolvency proceedings, the NCLAT approved a resolution plan, limiting the Department's claim to Rs.61.05 crores. Despite this, the Department continued to raise demands. UltraTech argued that the

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Rajasthan Tax Board exercised its jurisdiction excessively and with material …

**Ratio:** The ratio is based on the principle that once a resolution plan is approved under the

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the Commercial Taxes Department's claim was comprehensively

…

**Interpretation:** The court interpreted the provisions of the IBC and the Rajasthan Value Added

…

**Application:** The court applied the ratio and reasoning to the specific facts of the case,

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** SANDEEP…; Vinod Kumar…
- **Appellants:** M/s Ultratech…
- **Respondents:** Binani Cement…; The Assistant…
- **Advocates:** Manish Priy…; Gopal S…; +2 more

## Timeline

- **2018-11-14 — NCLAT Or…**: Order passed by NCLAT, New Delhi,…
- **2019-07-26 — Supreme Cour…**: Order passed by Hon'ble…

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/high-courts-new-delhi/ms-ultratech-nathdwara-cement-limited-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-commercial-t-f818dc34