SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 50062

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. DINESH KUMAR SINGH TH, J
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (WORKS CONTRACT), KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT – Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 39185 OF 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: GOVERNMENT PLEADER ARUN CHANDY
For the Respondents: ADV K.B.ARUNKUMAR

The National Company Law Tribunal cannot declare an assessment order void ab initio; such authority lies beyond its jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Sections 14 and 33(5) - National Company Law Tribunal declared assessment order void ab initio, asserting that it violated the moratorium provisions. The moratorium prohibits coercive legal actions but allows assessment determinations. Court finds the Tribunal's order unlawful for lacking jurisdiction. (Paras 3, 6, 7)

(B) Jurisdiction of NCLT - NCLT lacks authority under IBC to declare orders as void ab initio; must consider applications for appeals rather than assuming constitutional jurisdiction. (Paras 4, 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the National Company Law Tribunal's order which declared a prior assessment order null due to moratorium stated in IBC during the corporate liquidation process of the second respondent. Significant tax liabilities were assessed against the Corporate Debtor, which the petitioner sought to enforce.

Findings of Court:
The court found the NCLT's declaration of the assessment order as void ab initio to be without foundation, emphasizing the correct procedure was to consider the application for appeal.

Issues: The primary question was whether the NCLT had the power to declare an assessment order void ab initio under the IBC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while moratorium prevents recovery actions, it allows assessments, and the NCLT overstepped its authority in declaring such orders void without proper jurisdiction.

Result: Writ petition allowed; NCLT order set aside and remitted back for proper consideration.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's challenge to nclt's order. (Para 1 , 2)
2. issue of nclt's power to declare assessment void. (Para 3)
3. moratorium provisions under ibc. (Para 4)
4. limitations on recovery actions during moratorium. (Para 5)
5. nclt's order deemed unsustainable; writ allowed. (Para 6 , 7)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, Deputy Commissioner (Works Contract), has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the Order dated 26.10.2022 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench, under Section 33 (5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short, ‘IBC’).

2. The 2nd respondent Company is under liquidation.

The 2nd respondent, M/s Albanna Engineering (India) Private Limited, a Corporate Debtor, was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on 25.10.2019. M/s Sanghvi Movers Ltd filed IBA No.38/2019 under Section 9 of the IBC against the 2nd respondent. The CIRP effected public commencement on 03.11.2019. The CIRP order was passed against the Corporate Debtor, and the moratorium was declared as provided under Section 14 of the IBC. The moratorium declared against the Corporate Debtor existed till 02.12.2021, the day on which the liquidation order was passed in I.A. No.147/KOB/2021.

2.1 On verification of the assessment records of the 2nd respondent Company pertaining to the period 2015-16 certain irregularities were noticed. Hence, notice under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act was issued to the 2nd respondent. The assessment for the year 2015-16 was completed vide Order dated 25.02.2021, and the total liability of KVAT was determined to be Rs.11,76,35,628.70, which would include interest of Rs.4,31,82,699.14. The Department had claimed Rs.11,76,35,626.70 in Form-C dated 04.01.2022 before the resolution professional appointed by the Company Law Board for M/s Albanna Engineering (India) Private Limited.

2.2 Against the petitioner’s Form-C application, the 2nd respondent had filed an application before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench, under Section 33 (5) of the IBC seeking permission to prefer an appeal against the order of assessment dated 25.02.2021 passed by the petitioner. Though the application was only for seeking permission to file an appeal against the assessment order dated 25.02.2021, the National Company Law Tribunal had passed the impugned order stating that the Assessment Order was passed in violation of the prohibition provided under Section 14 (1)(a) of IBC. Therefore, the Assessment Order was declared void ab initio. The National Company Law Tribunal dismissed the application of the 2nd respondent and directed the 2nd respondent to consider the claim submitted by the KVAT Works Contract Authorities independently, ignoring the assessment order dated 25.02.2021.

3. The question which falls for consideration in this writ petition before this Court is whether the NCLT is empowered to declare the assessment order as void ab initio under Section 33 (5) of IBC?

4. Section 14 of IBC provides that when the insolvency process commences, the NCLT is mandated to declare a moratorium on the initiation of any coercive legal action against the Corporate Debtor. of the IBC on reproduction reads as under:

14. Moratorium.-

(1) Subject to provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), on the insolvency commencement date, the adjudicating authority shall by order declare moratorium for prohibiting all of the following, namely-

(a) the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority;

(b) transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein;

(c) any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top