Statutory dues not included in the resolution plan stand extinguished upon approval of the plan.

The Appellant, Poly Medicure Ltd., is the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA) for the Corporate Debtor, Himalayan Mineral Waters Pvt. Ltd

The Adjudicating Authority (AA) approved the Resolution Plan on 12/08/2025 but, in paragraphs 46, 47, and 53 of the impugned order, directed that reliefs, concessions, and waivers sought regarding Income Tax dues would be subject to the prior approval of the Competent Authority under the Income Tax Act, 1961

The Income Tax Department had been notified during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) but failed to file any claim

The Appellant challenged the order to the extent that it failed to extinguish these unclaimed statutory dues

1. Whether statutory dues existing at the time of the approval of the Resolution Plan, for which no claim was filed during the CIRP, stand extinguished upon the plan's approval

2. Whether the SRA must approach the Income Tax Department for approval to extinguish such unclaimed pre-CIRP dues

The court primarily relied on the "clean slate" doctrine established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Mishra Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (2021) 9 SCC 657

This precedent interprets the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) as a complete code intended to freeze all claims to ensure the SRA is not hit by "surprise claims"

Specifically, Paragraph 102.3 of Ghanshyam Mishra mandates that all statutory dues (Central, State, or Local) not included in the resolution plan stand extinguished, and no proceedings for the period prior to the plan's approval can be continued

The Tribunal observed that the Income Tax Department's failure to file a claim during the CIRP was an admitted fact

Applying the ratio of Ghanshyam Mishra, the NCLAT reasoned that the legislative intent of the IBC is to allow an SRA to start on a "clean slate" to make the Corporate Debtor a viable going concern

The court held that while the AA was correct in stating that specific procedural concessions or waivers under the Income Tax Act must be handled by the competent authorities, this does not apply to the extinguishment of unclaimed debts.

The court found that because no claim was filed, those specific dues were legally extinguished by the operation of Section 31 of the IBC as interpreted by the Supreme Court

The Tribunal declined to rule on the Department's argument regarding Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, noting it was not applicable to the immediate facts

The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority’s order regarding the necessity of approaching authorities for other specific concessions or waivers, but reversed the implication that unclaimed pre-CIRP dues required such approval for extinguishment