Claim-Belated Claims

NCLAT affirms decision of NCLT on rejection of claim due to delayed in filing claim due to not aware about Liquidation Order – The Assistant Commissioner of Customs Vs. Kshitiz Chhawchharia, Liquidator, Concast Steel & Power Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

The Liquidation Order against the Corporate Debtor was passed on 26.09.2018. The last date was submission of claim was 26.10.2018. The Appellant filed its Claim before the Liquidator on 16.08.2022. (after more than three and a half years). The only reason mentioned by the Appellant was that they were not aware of the Liquidation Order, hence the delay was caused in filing the Claim. The Adjudicating Authority has rejected the I.A. filed by the Appellant. Hon’ble NCLAT upholds the decision the Adjudicating Authority. The Appeal is dismissed.

NCLAT affirms decision of NCLT on rejection of claim due to delayed in filing claim due to not aware about Liquidation Order – The Assistant Commissioner of Customs Vs. Kshitiz Chhawchharia, Liquidator, Concast Steel & Power Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Claims made by Income Tax Dept. in pursuance to the assessment proceedings were finalised after the approval of Resolution Plan by Adjudicating Authority – Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. RP of Diamond Power Infrastructure Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that in the present case, the claims made by the Appellant in pursuance to the assessment proceedings were finalised after the approval of the resolution plan by the CoC and the Adjudicating Authority. Allowing the claim at this belated stage would unleash the hydra-headed monster of undecided claims on the SRA and would have the effect of setting the clock back causing further delay in the CIRP of the Corporate Debtor, which does not commend us.

Claims made by Income Tax Dept. in pursuance to the assessment proceedings were finalised after the approval of Resolution Plan by Adjudicating Authority – Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. RP of Diamond Power Infrastructure Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

The timelines as stipulated in the IBC need to be considered as of Directory nature and not as Mandatory in nature – Vikram Laxman Pawar Vs. Mr. Sripatham Venkatasubramaniam Ramkumar, RP of Privilege Industries Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that it may also be worth considering that although the timeline as stipulated in the Code are sacrosanct and important and sometime critical for resolution of the Corporate Debtor in order to achieve the maximization of value of all the stakeholders, the timelines need to be considered as of directory nature and not as mandatory in nature.

The timelines as stipulated in the IBC need to be considered as of Directory nature and not as Mandatory in nature – Vikram Laxman Pawar Vs. Mr. Sripatham Venkatasubramaniam Ramkumar, RP of Privilege Industries Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Tax determination and Assessments are not covered under moratorium, only recovery of tax under CGST/SGST Act is prohibited by virtue of moratorium under Section 14 of IBC, 2016 – Assistant Commissioner, State Goods and Service Tax Department Vs. CA Rajendran P R, IP – NCLT Kochi Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Kochi Bench has held that:

(i) The assessment proceedings are considered to be outside the purview of moratorium, proceedings for recovery of tax would fall within the ambit of moratorium. While the tax authorities may continue the assessment proceedings to determine the quantum of their claim, they cannot however, proceed with execution, distress or recovery.
(ii) Section 82 of Kerala State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (KGST Act) clearly states that the Government shall have first charge on the assets subject to the provisions of the I&B Code, 2016.
(iii) It is a settled legal position that tax determination and assessments are not covered under moratorium and only recovery of tax under CGST/SGST Act is prohibited by virtue of moratorium under I&B Code, 2016.
(iv) The delay in submitting the claims occurred due to the restricting of the GST Department in general and is inadvertent from the side of the applicant. This bench is of the view that there is no wilful delay or latches on the part of the applicant in filing the claim before the RP and therefore the claim should be accepted by the RP.

Tax determination and Assessments are not covered under moratorium, only recovery of tax under CGST/SGST Act is prohibited by virtue of moratorium under Section 14 of IBC, 2016 – Assistant Commissioner, State Goods and Service Tax Department Vs. CA Rajendran P R, IP – NCLT Kochi Bench Read Post »

Mere fact that Adjudicating Authority has not yet approved Resolution Plan does not imply that Rplan can go back and forth, making CIRP an endless process as this would result in the reopening of the whole issue – Parag Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Ratnakar Shetty RP of Unishire Lifestyle Dwellings LLP – NCLT Bengaluru Bench

Hon’ble Adjudicating Authority refers the judgment in RPS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar & Anr. (2023) ibclaw.in 102 SC and holds that mere fact that the Adjudicating Authority has not yet approved the Plan does not imply that the Plan can go back and forth, thereby making the CIRP an endless process as this would result in the reopening of the whole issue. Moreover, it is not the case of the Applicant that his claim was completely rejected. Instead, even though it is filed belatedly, the Respondent has partly admitted the claim of the Applicant after due verification of the books of accounts of the Corporate Debtor and also by seeking clarification from the erstwhile management of the Corporate Debtor.

Mere fact that Adjudicating Authority has not yet approved Resolution Plan does not imply that Rplan can go back and forth, making CIRP an endless process as this would result in the reopening of the whole issue – Parag Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Ratnakar Shetty RP of Unishire Lifestyle Dwellings LLP – NCLT Bengaluru Bench Read Post »

Scroll to Top