TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gencies was approximately Rs. 2.26 Crores. In the case of Rainbow Paper Limited [ 2022 (9) TMI 317 - SUPREME COURT] , the application filed by the State Tax Officer (1) was dismissed holding that the Government cannot claim first charge over the property of the Corporate Debtor, as Section 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax, 2003 (GVAT Act) which provides for first charge on the property of a dealer in respect of any amount payable by the dealer on account of tax, interest, penalty etc. cannot prevail over Section 53 of the Code and thus the question which was raised in the said appeal was as to whether the provision of the IBC and, in particular, Section 53 thereof, overrides Section 48 of the GVAT Act? - It was observed that under the unamended provisions of Regulation 12(1), the Appellant therein was not required to file any claim. Read with Regulation 10, the Appellant would only be required to substantiate the claim by production of such material as might be called for. It was also held therein that the Section 48 of the GVAT Act is not contrary to or inconsistent with Section 53 or any other provisions of the IBC. Under Section 53(1)(b)(ii), the debts owed to a secure credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jain : The Appellant has challenged the order dated 13.03.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench) by which an application bearing M.A. No. 2531 of 2019 filed by the Resolution Professional (RP) under Section 30(6) and 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short Code ) in CP(IB)1886/MB/2018 for approval of the resolution plan of the Corporate Debtor has been allowed. 2. In brief, the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 27.11.2018, initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the NRC Limited (Corporate Debtor/Respondent No. 1) and appointed Vikas Prakash Gupta (Respondent No. 2) as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) who was further confirmed as the RP of the Corporate Debtor pursuant to the resolution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in its second meeting held on 21.01.2019. The resolution plan submitted by the Resolution Applicant (RA) i.e. Adani Properties Private Limited, on 10.05.2019, was approved by the CoC with 99.88% vote share whereas 0.00% voters abstained from voting and 0.12% voters of the CoC rejected the plan. The Respondent No. 2, by way of an application bearing M.A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition was dismissed by the High Court on 18.07.2006. The Respondent No. 1 challenged the order dated 18.07.2006 by way of SLP(C) No. 14419 of 2006 in which the Hon ble Supreme Court on 13.11.2006, directed Respondent No. 1 to deposit a total sum of Rs. 4.5 Crore including the earlier paid amounts and directed that further no tax will be recovered till all the Municipal Appeals are decided finally. The Respondent No. 1 deposited Rs. 3,72,42,000/- as the balance amount with the Appellant vide receipt no. 74307 on 08.01.2007. It is the case of the Appellant that since Municipal Appeal is still pending, therefore, the Appellant has not taken any steps for recovery of the taxes in view of the judgment dated 13.11.2006. It is averred that a meeting was called by the Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra in respect of issues raised by the workers of Respondent No. 1 in which it was decided on 12.02.2009 that the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 shall enter into a registered agreement to create first charge of the Appellant on the properties of the Respondent No. 1 which shall be sufficient to recover the property tax. It is also averred that in the meeting held on 17.04.2009 with Labour Min ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imely informed about the proceedings. A copy of letter dated 11.12.2018 has been attached as Annexure B with the Reply. Consequent on the public announcement, the RP received claims from various financial and operational creditors including four local/central government bodies and after verification of all submitted claims, duly collated the claims and prepared the information memorandum (IM) on 25.03.2019 as per Section 29 r/w Regulation 36 of the Code. As per IM, the amount admitted claims of various government agencies was approximately Rs. 2.26 Crores and at no point of time the Appellant submitted their claim to the RP despite the public announcement made in accordance with law and also the letter Annexure B. It is alleged that the Appellant had the knowledge of the CIRP proceedings and ought to have submitted their claims within the prescribed period and cannot now after such a belated stage claim ignorance and attempt to stall the proceedings of the resolution process. 5. In the rejoinder to the reply filed by the Respondent No. 1, the Appellant has reiterated the averments made in the memorandum of appeal. 6. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that though neither ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as argued that in terms of Regulation 6 of Regulations, the publication was made in which it was categorically mentioned that the statutory authority may file their claim with proof and has also referred to a letter dated 11.12.2018 (Annexure-B) which has been appended with the reply of SRA. 9. In rebuttal, Counsel for the Appellant has also referred to Section 141 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act to contend that it has a first charge whereas the RP has submitted that since no claim was made in this regard, therefore, it was not part of the information memorandum. 10. We have heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 11. From the resume of the aforesaid facts, it is clear that CIRP of the Corporate Debtor was initiated on 27.11.2018 and the RP made the public announcement, inviting the claims of all the creditors of the Corporate Debtor by publication in Marathi (i.e.Navshakti) as well as in English (i.e The Free Press Journal) and also published notice on the website of the Corporate Debtor. It has also come on record that the RP sent a letter dated 11.12.2018 to the Appellant intimating about its appointment as IRP of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12 of the Regulations provided that a creditor shall submit proof of claim on or before the last date mentioned in the public announcement whereas w.e.f 04.07.2018 the said regulation was amended and the proof of claim was changed to claim with proof required to be submitted on or before the last date mentioned in the public announcement. It was observed that under the unamended provisions of Regulation 12(1), the Appellant therein was not required to file any claim. Read with Regulation 10, the Appellant would only be required to substantiate the claim by production of such material as might be called for. It was also held therein that the Section 48 of the GVAT Act is not contrary to or inconsistent with Section 53 or any other provisions of the IBC. Under Section 53(1)(b)(ii), the debts owed to a secure creditor, which would include the State under the GVAT Act, are to rank equally with other specified debts including debts on account of workman s dues for a period of 24 months preceding the liquidation commencement date and that the State is a secured creditor under the GVAT Act. Section 3(30) of the Code defines secured creditor to mean a creditor in favour of whom security in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
