LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG Shipyard vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

Civil Appeal · 2022 INSC 872Decided 26 Aug 2022
Civil Appeal No. 7667 of 2021
N.V. Ramana · J.K. Maheshwari · Hima Kohli

Background

ABG Shipyard, a shipbuilding company, had imported goods that were lying in Customs Bonded Warehouses when insolvency proceedings began against it in 2017 and it later went into liquidation in 2019. The liquidator asked the Customs Department to release the warehoused goods without payment of customs duty, arguing the IBC's moratorium and asset-distribution scheme override the Customs Act. Instead, the Customs Department issued demand notices and claimed a right under the Customs Act to sell the goods to recover unpaid duties. The NCLT sided with the liquidator, but the NCLAT reversed this, holding the company had abandoned the goods and lost title to Customs, which could sell them independently of the IBC process.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that once a moratorium is imposed under Sections 14 or 33(5) of the IBC, the Customs Authority retains only a limited power, to assess and determine the amount of customs duty and other levies owed, but loses the power to initiate recovery through sale or confiscation of the goods; that power must give way to the IBC's insolvency process. After assessing its dues, Customs must lodge its claim with the liquidator in the manner and time frames prescribed under the IBC, like any other creditor, rather than acting unilaterally. The Court also held that the liquidator is entitled to take custody of the warehoused goods so they can be dealt with under the IBC's structured framework, and that the NCLAT was wrong to hold that the company had lost title to the goods before the moratorium began. The appeal was allowed and the NCLAT's order was set aside.

Lesson Learnt

When a company goes into insolvency or liquidation, government departments, including Customs, cannot bypass the IBC's collective process to seize or sell company assets on their own; they must quantify their dues and stand in line as creditors through the liquidator, under the priority scheme set by the IBC.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Tax & Customs Law

Tax & Customs LawSupreme Court of India

Mepco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld treatment of this subsidy as a taxable revenue receipt. It applied the purpose test: the scheme had to be read as a whole to determine whether the assistance supported capital investment or the running of an established business. Here, payment tracked actual electricity charges incurred in production and was not earmarked for plant, machinery, factory construction or repayment of capital borrowing. The scheme's broad aim of industrial development did not override those operative features, and payment after production began was relevant to the overall scheme rather than decisive by itself.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Tax & Customs LawDelhi High Court

M/S Kuku Overseas vs. Commissioner of Customs & Anr.

The Court found the petitioner's non-disclosure of the earlier adjudication order was material, since the core premise of the petition (indefinite non-finalisation) no longer held true once formal orders existed. It held the petitioner now had an effective alternate remedy, a statutory appeal under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, to raise all its arguments, including about delay, and declined to keep the writ petition pending just because a related Supreme Court case on delay in adjudication was ongoing. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable in its present form, with liberty to appeal.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Tax & Customs LawDelhi High Court

M/s Aparna Collection vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court rejected the argument that limitation under Section 74(2) must be measured from the date on Form GST DRC-01, because DRC-01 is only a summary of the show cause notice. On Section 74(10), the Court held that the statute requires the order, not the DRC-07, to be issued within the prescribed period, and that DRC-07 is a summary uploaded later under Rule 142. Because the petitioner had a statutory alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107, and the questions raised needed factual findings, the Court declined to decide the merits in writ jurisdiction. The petitions were disposed of, with liberty to appeal under Section 107 and to raise all contentions there, including limitation and exclusion of the time spent in these proceedings.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Tax & Customs LawSupreme Court of India

Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax & Others v. Cadila Health Care Ltd. & Another

The Supreme Court dismissed the authorities' appeals and upheld the classification accepted by the High Court. It held that, under the statutory entries at issue, classification depended on the goods' form when sold, rather than what customers might later prepare with them. The beverage entry grouped beverages with syrups, cordials, juices and other liquid preparations, and did not expressly include powders used to make drinks. Packaging instructions and general tests of popular meaning or function could not expand that clear statutory description. Because the products did not fit the specific beverage entry, they belonged in the residual category; precedents involving differently worded entries or liquid products did not change that result.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Tax & Customs LawDelhi High Court

Zoom Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 25(1) & Anr.

The Court dismissed the writ petition. Except for the assessment year, the facts were identical to the earlier case, and the Court held that judicial discipline required it to follow the Coordinate Bench's decision in the petitioner's own case. The Court did not accept the petitioner's reliance on an interim order in another company's case, and noted that the earlier judgment in the petitioner's own case was final. The earlier judgment also left it to the Assessing Officer to examine, after the notice is answered, whether the Rs 82 lakh amount is a spurious transaction.

Decided 1 Oct 2026Read case
Tax & Customs LawDelhi High Court

Ms Devi Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner CGST Delhi South & Ors.

The High Court dismissed the petition. It held that the Commissioner could validly invoke Section 54(11), because an anti-evasion investigation was already underway when the impugned order was passed and the Commissioner had formed an opinion of fraud or malfeasance based on contemporaneous material. The Court held that the power to withhold refund is distinct from the adjudication and appellate scheme under Sections 73, 74 and 107, and that the absence of a statutory appeal does not bar judicial review. However, an appeal had already been filed before the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), so the Court declined to decide disputed factual questions and left all issues open before the GSTAT.

Decided 1 Oct 2026Read case