Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 851
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Justice Ashok Bhushan (Chairperson) , Hon'ble Mr. Barun Mitra (Member (Technical)) ,
Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-1 – Appellant
Versus
Mr. Sundaresh Bhat (Resolution Professional of JBF Petrochemicals Ltd.) – Respondent
575/ND/2023 COMPANY APPEAL(AT)(INS)
The approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is binding, and claims not submitted within the stipulated time are extinguished, reinforcing the importance of adherence to timelines in insolvency proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 61 - Corporate Debtor admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) - Resolution plan approved without considering Appellant's claims - Appellant's claim submitted beyond stipulated time - Claims rejected by Resolution Professional (RP) - Appellant failed to demonstrate due diligence in filing claims within the prescribed timeline - Adjudicating Authority's approval of resolution plan upheld. (Paras 1, 5, 10, 20, 28)
(B) Natural Justice - Principles of natural justice not violated as Appellant had multiple opportunities to contest claim rejection but failed to do so - Appellant's claim deemed rejected due to non-compliance with timelines. (Paras 6, 19)
(C) Claims - Once resolution plan approved, new claims cannot be entertained - Claims not part of resolution plan considered extinguished. (Paras 20, 24)
(D) Secured Creditor - Appellant's claim as a secured creditor rejected as Income Tax Act does not provide basis for such status. (Paras 27)
J U D G M E N T
(Hybrid Mode)
Per: Barun Mitra, Member (Technical)
The present appeal filed under Section 61 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (‘IBC’ in short) by the Appellant arises out of the Order dated 13.03.2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’) passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench-II) in I.A. No. 899/AHM/2022 in CP (IB) No. 232 (AHM) of 2018. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has approved the resolution plan of the Corporate Debtor. Since the resolution plan did not incorporate the claims of the Appellant, aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been preferred.
2. Outlining the factual matrix, we find that the Corporate Debtor was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’ in short) by the Adjudicating Authority on 28.01.2022 following a Section 7 application filed by the Financial Creditor-IDBI Bank Limited. Thereafter, an Interim Resolution Professional was appointed who took steps to invite claims having made the requisite Public Announcement besides constituting the Committee of Creditor (“CoC” in short). The IRP was confirmed as Resolution Professional (“RP” in short). The 90 days period for filing of claims expired on 28.04.2022. Post the initiation of CIRP and imposition of moratorium, the Commissioner of Income Tax-Appellant had initiated the income tax assessment proceedings of the Corporate Debtor and passed the assessment order for Assessment Year (“A.Y.”
in short) 2018-19 on 31.03.2022. Thereafter, the Appellant filed claims in respect of the above tax assessment before the RP on 13.05.2022 in Form-B alongwith assessment order for A.Y. 2018-19 and CPC processed demand for A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2021-22. These claims were rejected by the RP. The CoC approved the resolution plan of the Corporate Debtor, following which, RP sought the approval of the Adjudicating Authority thereto. The Adjudicating Authority approved the resolution plan which did not factorise the claims of the Appellant on 13.03.2023. Aggrieved by the fact that the claim of the Appellant had been rejected, the present appeal has been preferred against the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority approving the resolution plan.
3. For reasons of clarity, the salient dates and events are tabulated as below:
Sl. Date Particulars
1. 28.01.2022 The Corporate Debtor was admitted into corporate insolvency resolution process.
2. 04.02.2022 Public Announcement issued for the attention of the creditors inviting their claims.
3. 10.02.2022 RP intimated the Appellant that CIRP was initiated against Corporate Debtor.
4. 16.02.2022 Last date for submission of claims by the creditors as per the Public Announcement
5. 23.02.2022 List of creditors of the Corporate Debtor was uploaded by the RP. Appellant had not filed their claim till then.
6. 31.03.2022 Appellant passed an order against Corporate Debtor to pay Rs 9.94 cr for FY 17-18, AY 18-19 during moratorium.
7. 14.04.2022 List of creditors of the Corporate Debtors was uploaded by the RP on the Corporate Debtor’s website as well as filed with the IBBI. Appellant had not filed its claim till then.
8. 18.04.2022 The RP issued form G and invited EoI for submission of Resolution Plan.
9. 28.04.2022 90 days period completed for submission of claims. No claims filed by Appellant.
10. 06.05.2022 List of Creditors of the Corporate Debtor was again uploaded by the RP. Appellant had not filed its claim till then.
11. 13.05.2022 The Appellant submitted its claim before the RP for Rs.
10.14 Cr. pertaining to TDS violations.
12. 01.06.2022 Request for Resolution Plan for the Corporate Debtor issued.
13. 14.06.2022 The office of the Appellant received an email from the RP seeking copies of orders for years 2018-19 to 2020-21 in respect of the claims.
14. 20.06.2022 List of creditors of the Corporate Debtor was uploaded by RP which indicated that the claim of the Appellant was rejected.
15. 27.07.2022 180 days of CIRP period expired. No
