Diamond Power Infrastructure Ltd

The same has been decided by the Honourable Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) of State Tax against the Company by way of rejection of appeal and the Company has preferred an appeal before the Honourable GSTAT.No Change in Status during the quarter ended 31.03.2026.

The Company has preferred an Appeal before the Hon’ble Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) of State Tax, Vadodara against levy of 200% Penalty of Rs. 14,00,824/- under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017 read with similar provisions of the State GST Act by the State Tax Officer simply on account of a clerical error in mentioning the address of the consignee and selecting the E-Way Bill transaction type as ‘Bill to Ship to’ in the E-Way Bill. The same pertains to movement of goods during FY 2024-25.

The same is pending before the Hon’ble Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) of State Tax, Vadodara. No Change in Status during the quarter ended 31.03.2026.

An Appeal has been preferred against the Order passed for FY 2017-18 by the State Tax Officer before the Hon’ble Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) of State Tax, Vadodara against the confirmation of demand of Rs. 41,43,244/- plus interest of Rs. 41,43,244/- and a penalty of Rs. 4,14,324/- for confirmation of demand on the alleged difference of ITC availed when compared to GSTR-9, Ineligible ITC availment under Section 17(5), 16(4) and from dealers who have filed NIL Returns. The Honourable National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad vide IA/160(AHM)2022 in CP(IB) 137 of 2018 while sanctioning the resolution plan of M/s. GSEC Ltd. for Corporate Debtor held as under: “As far as reliefs and concessions claimed by the resolution applicant, the law has been well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0273/2021 in the following words: (i)“The legislative intent behind this is, to freeze all the claims so that the resolution applicant starts on a clean slate and is not flung with any surprise claims. If that is permitted, the very calculations on the basis of which the resolution applicant submits its plans, would go haywire and the plan would be unworkable. (ii)We have no hesitation to say, that the word "other stakeholders" would squarely cover the Central Government, any State Government or any local authorities. The legislature, noticing that on account of obvious omission, certain tax authorities were not abiding by the mandate of I&B Code and continuing with the proceedings, has brought out the 2019 amendment so as to cure the said mischief… 17. In view of the above, all past claims would stand extinguished. However, as far as various statutory rights vested with the Corporate Debtor in form of various licenses, leases, and others alike matter, we make it clear that the successful resolution applicant has to approach the concerned statutory authority for those concessions and those authorities will consider the same as per their established procedure.” Thus, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 238 thereof stipulating that provisions of aforesaid Code have overriding effect on any other law for time being in force - Non obstante clause in Section 238 ibid and word ‘shall’ used in Section 31(1) ibid makes it abundantly clear that a resolution plan approved by committee of creditors and further approved by National Company Law Tribunal would be binding on all creditors including Central Government, any State Government or any local authority to whom a debt in respect of payment of dues arising under any law for time being in force. Accordingly, no liability though exists on the part of the company, the demand has been created in Electronic Liability Register and hence the same has been shown as contingent liability.