Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + HC Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 869 - HC - Insolvency and BankruptcyRejection of application of the petitioner for grant of registration under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2016 - Company under liquidation under the provisions of IBC - primary ground for rejection was non-furnishing of the required documents - rejection on a completely nongermane ground - HELD THAT:- It is the specific stand of the petitioner that the Notification No. 11/2020 dated 21.03.2020 as amended by Notification No. 39/2020 dated 05.05.2020 would not apply in case of the petitioner for he being a liquidator as they are applicable qua IRP and RP. It is to be remembered that under Regulation 32 of IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016, petitioner was under an obligation to make an attempt to sell the business of company-in-liquidation as a going concern or on slump sale basis and if the liquidator is unable to sell the business in either way of clause (e) or (f) of the Regulation 32, within 90 days from the liquidation commencement date, he is required to sell the assets of the company under liquidation by other methods. The petitioner is an appointee of National Company Law Tribunal and is not required to run from the post to pillar for the grant of registration under the GST Act. He already had approached the concerned officer and therefore, when he was denied the same on the ground of issue of limitation, he had preferred an appeal, however, the respondent authority when conveyed him to apply afresh, he has chosen to approach this Court - According to this Court, once an application was moved for obtaining the registration under GST before the respondent authority, the denial of registration under the GST is completely on an ill conceive ground. Not only the authority concerned had not distinguish between the IRP/RP and liquidator but, both have different functions and even otherwise, if all of them are considered as the persons authorized under the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, applying even the notifications 11/2020 and 39/2020 in case of the present petitioner, the authority could not have disregarded the prevalence of the pandemic due to COVID-19 virus. Wherever there is a requirement, Section 25 requires the proper officer to register such person in such a manner as may be prescribed, if he is otherwise liable to be registered. Thus, in case of any delay in obtaining the registration, Section 25(8) obligates the proper officer to proceed to register such person. He may impose a penalty in accordance with Section 122 of the GST Act, however, this non-grant of registration for fulfilling the official duty for the sell of business of the company-in-liquidation as a going concern/slump sale basis or on standalone basis deserves the indulgence with a specific direction to the highest authority under the GST Regime to stop having hyper technical approach and instead make it more user friendly. The liquidator could have approached the concerned authority well in time, however, if he has not done it because of the various details that he needed to gather and collate, he could not have been sent from the post to pillar - the respondent authority is directed to grant registration under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2016 - petition allowed.
|