Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2023 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1385 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , CHENNAI BENCHApproval of Resolution Plan - Non Consideration of GST liability as First Charge - failure to follow the requirements u/s 30(2) of the I&B Code which mandates that the 1st Respondent, to ensure that the ‘Resolution Plan’ conforms to the parameters prescribed in the said provision, in the I&B Code - HELD THAT:- This ‘Tribunal,’ pertinently points out that the ‘Appellant’ / ‘Applicant’ had filed a claim in Form-F for a sum of Rs.54,46,13,819/-, on 12.012.2018, after adjusting the receipts of Rs.30,36,36,873/-, in respect of GST Liability and the same was rejected by the 1st Respondent / Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor, because of the fact that the claim was resting upon the Estimates and Best Judgment Assessment orders, in the teeth of Section 62 of the KGST Act, 2017. Considering the fact that Appellant / Petitioner, came up with the same ‘claim’, ‘sum’, which arose, based on ‘Best Judgment Assessment’ order, made on earlier occasion, and the ‘regular assessment’, was not made, hence, this Tribunal, is of the ‘cocksure’ opinion, that the ‘demand’ was not ‘ascertained’ and not crystalised and placed before the 1st Respondent / Resolution Professional for consideration of the ‘Committee of Creditors’. Suffice it, for this ‘Tribunal’, to pertinently point out that the Appellant / Petitioner, is prohibited, based on the ‘Principle of Res judicata’, and ‘by its conduct, is estopped’ from agitating the likewise, grounds for determination before the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ / ‘Tribunal’. This Tribunal, ongoing through the impugned order passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ / ‘NCLT Bengaluru Bench, is of the considered opinion, that the ‘observations’ made in paragraph 18 and 19 to the effect ‘that the claim of Applicant, would not be considered to have ‘First Charge’ at par with secured creditors under the mandatory provisions of Section 82 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Act, 2017, Section 82 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Section 20 of the integrated goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and that ‘Section 20 of the IGST Act provides that certain provisions of CGST Act inter alia, those falling under Demands and recovery section of CGST Act shall, ‘mutatis mutandis’, apply, so far as may be, in relation to integrated tax, as they apply in relation to the ‘Central Tax’, as if they are enacted under the IGST Act etc.’ and that apart, a ‘specific exception to the provisions of the Code’ was prescribed in the aforesaid provisions, and expressly providing and overriding effect to the I&B Code, are ‘free from any legal errors’. Appeal dismissed.
|