TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- A conjoint reading of section 14(1)(a) and section 238 of IBC Code, clearly shows that the Code overrides section 44 of the GVAT Act, as the same is inconsistent with the provisions of the Code. Thus the action of R1 is clearly barred by provisions of section 14(1)(a) - Even though the CIRP period was over and the liquidation order passed by this Bench was stayed by the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal and the direction was given that the RP will manage the company and ensures that the company will remain as a going concern, we are of the considered opinion that CIRP is still continuing. Thus the Moratorium provided u/s 14 is in operation and the action of R1 is hit by section 14(1)(a) of the Code. R1 is directed to refund the sum of &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that during the period of CIRP R1 on 9-6-2020 directed R2 to pay to it a sum of ₹ 1,23,93,968/- from the account of the Corporate Debtor towards the State Tax dues and accordingly R2 on 10-6-2020 made the payment to R1. 3. The Applicant submits that consequent upon public announcement inviting claims from the creditors of the Corporate Debtor, R1 filed claim for a sum of ₹ 3,43,51,895/- with regard to Gujarat Value Added Tax Liability of the Corporate Debtor for the period from 2001-2002 to 2003-04 and the same was admitted by the Applicant. The CIRP period of the Corporate Debtor expired on 8-12-2018 and on an application by this Applicant, this Bench by an order dated 28-11-2018 extended the CIRP by 90 days and the CIRP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ues of the Corporate Debtor. Accordingly, R2 transferred a sum of ₹ 1,23,93,968/-on 10-6-2020 from the account of the Corporate Debtor maintained with R2. 6. The Applicant submits that CIRP is still continuing and during this period, the action of R1 by exercise of powers under section 44 of GVAT Act, is in violation of Section 14 of the Code, in directing R2 to make payment of ₹ 1,23,93,968/-. Since this amount has been transferred in violation of Section 14 of the Code, the Applicant seeks direction against R1 to refund the said amount. 7. During the hearing on 21-8-2020, the Asst. Commissioner of State Sales Tax appeared before this Bench through video-conferencing and took time to file reply. However, for the hearing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor. [Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, it is hereby clarified that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a licence, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearance or a similar grant or right given by the Central Government, State Government, local authority, sectoral regulator or any other authority constituted under any other law for the time being in force, shall not be suspended or terminated on the grounds of insolvency, subject to the condition that there is no default in payment of current dues arising for the use or continuation of the license or a similar grant or right during moratorium period;] (2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he date of such approval or liquidation order, as the case may be. 9. Section 238 of the code reads as below: 238. Provisions of this Code to override other laws. - The provisions of this Code shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. 10. A conjoint reading of section 14(1)(a) and section 238 of the Code, clearly shows that the Code overrides section 44 of the GVAT Act, as the same is inconsistent with the provisions of the Code. Thus the action of R1 is clearly barred by provisions of section 14(1)(a). 11. The RP relied on the following judicial pronouncements to buttress his co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
