Back
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Alchemist Asset And Reconstruction Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Inspector General – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. The matter comes up on an application filed by the respondents under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of the stay granted by this Court on 30/07/2021.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-State submitted that by an interim order, this Court restrained the respondents from proceeding further in pursuance of notice dated 27/04/2021 issued under Section 37 read with Section 51 and 53 of the Rajasthan Stamps Act directing the petitioner-company to pay requisite stamps duty on the documents which were executed as Asset Credit Agreement and other ancillary documents as mentioned in the notice. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that it is a case of evasion of stamps duty for which the Deputy Inspector General, Registration & Stamp (Tax Evasion) Rajasthan Jaipur Special Circle & Ex-Officio Collector (Stamp), Jaipur (Rajasthan) alone is empowered to issue notice and the reason put forward by the petitioner's counsel and taken into consideration for granting of an interim stay is not admissible. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is a creditor company and does not have a locus to challenge the notice under Section 3
The court established that the Rajasthan Stamps Act allows for independent proceedings regarding stamp duty, and the IBC moratorium does not apply to non-corporate debtors.
The court clarified the applicability of RBI guidelines in the context of ongoing CIRP and upheld the validity of the impugned Show-Cause Notice, emphasizing compliance with the RBI guidelines.
(1) IBC is not just another statute for recovery of debts – Nor is it a statute which merely prescribes modalities of liquidation of a Corporate body, unable to pay its debts – It is essentially a st....
The court emphasized that compliance with stamp duty regulations should not be a means to delay justice once revenue interests have been served.
The moratorium provision under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 does not apply to the natural persons mentioned in Section 141(1) and (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
(1) Assets of company would include amounts lying to credit in bank accounts.(2) Power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may not be available to Court to countenance breach of a statuary provision.
The court ruled that the moratorium under Section 33(5) of the IBC does not apply to pending suits, thereby allowing them to proceed despite liquidation proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
