Other Laws-GST, Custom & Excise Duty, Service Tax & Indirect Taxes Vs. IBC

Custom Duty imposed for the sale to a foreign buyer during liquidation proceedings – The Customs Department Vs. Sembmarine Kakinada Ltd. – NCLT Amaravati Bench

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here […]

Custom Duty imposed for the sale to a foreign buyer during liquidation proceedings – The Customs Department Vs. Sembmarine Kakinada Ltd. – NCLT Amaravati Bench Read Post »

Recovery of tax from buyer/third party who holds money of Corporate Debtor, in case tax not deposited by Corporate Debtor, does not constitute a violation of the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC and cannot be treated as a Preferential Transaction within the meaning of Section 43 of the Code – Commercial Tax Department Vs. Mr. Mangesh Vitthal Kekre RP of Bhagwan Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT held that:

(i) The condition precedent for attracting Section 43(1) is whether the Corporate Debtor has at any relevant time given a preference in transaction. The present is a case where no transaction was made by the Corporate Debtor which was questioned in Application filed by the RP.
(ii) There was no applicability of Section 14, the transaction in question under which the party deposited the amount before the Commercial Tax Department in response of statutory Notice cannot be said to be in violation of Section 14 of the IBC.

Recovery of tax from buyer/third party who holds money of Corporate Debtor, in case tax not deposited by Corporate Debtor, does not constitute a violation of the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC and cannot be treated as a Preferential Transaction within the meaning of Section 43 of the Code – Commercial Tax Department Vs. Mr. Mangesh Vitthal Kekre RP of Bhagwan Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Whether a Chit holder is an Operational Creditor under Section 5(20) of the IBC? | Does mere depositing of GST qualify a transaction of commercial nature as Operational Debt? – Mrs. Poorna Chandra Vs. Surabhi Chits Ltd. – NCLT Bengaluru Bench

Hon’ble NCLT Bengaluru Bench held that:

(i) As per the RBI FAQs it is noticed that a non-banking institution which is a company and has principal business of receiving deposits under any scheme or arrangement in one lump sum or in installments by way of contributions or in any other manner, is also a non-banking financial company (Residuary Non-banking Company).
(ii) The Corporate Debtor herein is a NBFC (even though not registered with the RBI due to exemption) rendering financial services and, thus, is out of the purview of the I&B Code; since it cannot be treated as a Corporate Person in accordance with Section 3(7) of the I&B Code, 2016.

Whether a Chit holder is an Operational Creditor under Section 5(20) of the IBC? | Does mere depositing of GST qualify a transaction of commercial nature as Operational Debt? – Mrs. Poorna Chandra Vs. Surabhi Chits Ltd. – NCLT Bengaluru Bench Read Post »

Appellant’s claim under Maharashtra Value Added Tax, 2002 and GST cannot be accepted as Secured Creditor and as per Section 30(2) of the IBC – Department of State Tax, Through The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax Vs. Pranav Constructions Systems Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

Hon’ble NCLAT referring judgment in Department of State Tax v. Zicom Saas Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2023) ibclaw.in 109 NCLAT, holds that Appellant’s claim cannot be accepted as Secured Creditor and as per Section 30(2) of the Code, the Appellant was entitled only for amount not less than the amount to be received by the Appellant in event of liquidation. Present is not a case where it is claimed that amount is less than the liquidation value.

Appellant’s claim under Maharashtra Value Added Tax, 2002 and GST cannot be accepted as Secured Creditor and as per Section 30(2) of the IBC – Department of State Tax, Through The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax Vs. Pranav Constructions Systems Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 is not applicable in cases where the Resolution Plan has been approved under the IBC – Patanjali Foods Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs – Karnataka High Court

Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that:

(i) The Custom Dept. not having made any claim before the IRP during the CIRP process and the demand not having been part of the resolution plan, has stood extinguished and cannot be continued.
(ii) As per Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, in the event a party to the appeal dies or is adjudicated as an insolvent or in the case of a company, is being wound up, the appeal would abate.
(iii) It is clear that Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 would not be attracted in a case where the resolution plan has been approved by the IBC.

Rule 22 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 is not applicable in cases where the Resolution Plan has been approved under the IBC – Patanjali Foods Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs – Karnataka High Court Read Post »

Section 33 of the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (MPVAT Act) is not pari materia with Section 48 of Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (GVAT Act) and Commercial Tax Dept. cannot be treated as secured creditors on the basis of the decision in Rainbow Papers – Commercial Tax Department Vs. Mrs. Teena Saraswat Pandey and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

In this judgment, Hon’ble NCLAT referring judgment in State Tax Officer (1) Vs. Rainbow Papers Ltd., (2022) ibclaw.in 107 SC and Department of State Tax Vs. Zicom Saas Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2023) ibclaw.in 109 NCLAT held that although it has also been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2023) ibclaw.in 81 SC that the decision in the case of Rainbow Papers (Supra) is a decision of the Court in the facts of the said case but without going into this aspect of the matter, argument of the Appellant would not cut any ice that Section 48 of the GVAT Act and Section 33 of the MPVAT Act are pari materia, therefore, the ratio laid down by the in Rainbow Papers (Supra) has to be applied rather the provisions of Section 37 of the MVAT Act and Section 33 of the MPVAT Act appears to be pari materia about which a decision has been taken by this court in the case of Zicom Saas (Supra) that both the provisions are not pari materia with Section 48 of the GVAT Act, therefore, no benefit can be given to the Appellant on the basis of the decision of the Rainbow Papers (Supra).

Section 33 of the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (MPVAT Act) is not pari materia with Section 48 of Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (GVAT Act) and Commercial Tax Dept. cannot be treated as secured creditors on the basis of the decision in Rainbow Papers – Commercial Tax Department Vs. Mrs. Teena Saraswat Pandey and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Creating charge/mark red entry in land revenue record pertaining to the Corporate Debtor’s properties during the moratorium is not permissible and continuing the said red entry/charge after approval of acquisition plan in liquidation process is clearly illegal & arbitrary – Su-Kam Power System Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. – Himachal Pradesh High Court

Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court held that:

(i) Since the provisions of the said Code had overriding effect on all laws in view of Section 238 of the Code, it was not permissible for the respondents to create a charge on the property of the Corporate Debtor during the currency of the moratorium in violation of the provisions of the IBC.
(ii) As per the amended Section 31 of the Code, the Clean Slate principle of taking over Corporate Debtor under a Resolution Plan, will also apply to taking over by way of acquisition plan.
(iii) The plea of the respondents that the tax dues claimed by them will have priority as a “Crown Debt”, therefore, cannot be accepted, and their action in continuing the said red entry/charge on account of dues recoverable from erstwhile management of the Corporate Debtor under the Himachal Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005, Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the CST Act, 1956, would be clearly illegal & arbitrary.

Creating charge/mark red entry in land revenue record pertaining to the Corporate Debtor’s properties during the moratorium is not permissible and continuing the said red entry/charge after approval of acquisition plan in liquidation process is clearly illegal & arbitrary – Su-Kam Power System Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. – Himachal Pradesh High Court Read Post »

State Tax Department under Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 cannot be held to be secured creditor – Department of State Tax, Through the Dy. Commr. of State Tax Vs. Siddheshwar Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here

State Tax Department under Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 cannot be held to be secured creditor – Department of State Tax, Through the Dy. Commr. of State Tax Vs. Siddheshwar Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top