State Tax Officer 3 vs Sunil Kumar Agarwal (Resolution ...
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1804 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The reasoning here rests entirely on an earlier decision of this Tribunal in Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1804 of 2025, which the order says considered the relevant provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act and held that dues under that Act are not secured debts. The order itself states no reasoning on that point and does not set out the provisions examined, so the rule it applies is only what the cited decision held, as reported in this order. NO_RATIO: The order decides the appeal solely by applying the holding of Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1804 of 2025 without itself stating any independent reasoning on the point, so no ratio can be extracted from this text alone.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: State Tax Officer (3) ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Sunil Kumar Agarwal, (R of Yogiraj Spinning Ltd.) & ...Respondent(s) Anr. Present: For Appellant : Mr. Priyam Raval, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Harshit Khare, Mr. Prafful Saini, Mr. Ayuj Agarwal, Mr. Brijesh Gupta, Advocates
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
16.01.2026 This Appeal has been filed against the order dated
19/11/2025 passed by Hon'ble National company Law Tribunal, Division
Bench, Court-1, Ahmedabad by which the Resolution Plan of the Corporate
Debtor has been approved. Appeal has been filed by the Appellant on the
ground that the dues under Central Sales Tax has not been treated as secured
debt hence the Plan is not in accordance with law.
2. The issue that whether the debt of Central Sales Tax Act is of secured
debt has been decided by us on Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1804 of 2025, State
Tax Officer vs Nitin Narang decided on 07th January 2026, where this Tribunal
after considering all relevant provisions of Central Sales Tax and another
provisions have held that the dues under Central Sales Tax Act are not
secured debts.
3. We, thus, are of the view that Impugned Order which does not treat the
dues of Applicant of secured debt is in accordance with law. The issue raised in the Appeal are fully covered by judgement dated 07/01/2026. We, thus, do
not find any ground to interfere in the order.
4. The Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Prerana/md
2 of 2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free