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

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 2118

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Rajeev Bhardwaj, Judicial Member, Sanjay Puri, Technical Member
Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & GST – Appellant
Versus
Anuradha Bisani – Respondent
CP (IB) No. 111/7/HDB/2017 | IA (IBC) 329/2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anand Das
For the Respondents: Anuradha Bisani

In the absence of wide public notice of liquidation proceedings as required by Regulation 12(3), the limitation period for filing claims by creditors commences from their date of actual knowledge, and such claims may be entertained provided the distribution of assets has not been finalized.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - S. 42 - IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 - Reg. 12(3) - Condonation of delay in filing claim - Failure to publish public announcement in the region where the corporate debtor conducted material business operations - Limitation period commences from the date of knowledge - Liquidator is under a duty to verify claims where liquidation process has not concluded and distribution is not finalized. (Paras 48, 50, 51, 52)

Facts of the case:
Applicant, a statutory tax authority, sought to condone the delay in filing its proof of claim against the corporate debtor. The applicant claimed it had no knowledge of the liquidation proceedings because the public announcement was not published in the region where the corporate debtor conducted significant business. The liquidator rejected the claim on the grounds of limitation and lack of notice of assessment proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the liquidator failed to prove compliance with Reg. 12(3) of the Liquidation Regulations regarding public announcement in the region of business. Consequently, the limitation period was computed from the actual date the applicant received knowledge of the proceedings. Since the liquidation process was ongoing and distribution was not complete, the court condoned the delay and directed the liquidator to adjudicate the claim on merits.

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the claim should be condoned due to lack of adequate public notice and whether the claim can be admitted after the approval of an acquisition plan where distribution is still pending.

Ratio Decidendi: If a liquidator fails to provide wide public notice in regions of material business operations, the limitation period for filing claims does not strictly commence from the initial announcement but from the date of the creditor's knowledge of the liquidation. Claims can be entertained if the liquidation process has not fully concluded.

Result: Application allowed.

Table of Content
1. applicant's submission on claim delay and statutory debts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
2. respondent's submission on res judicata and process completion. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
3. rejoinder arguments addressing procedural irregularities and claim legitimacy. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
4. tribunal's background review and procedural history. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
5. assessment of notice requirement and condonation of delay. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)

O R D E R

IA (IBC) 329/2026

Present: Mr. Anand Das, Learned Counsel for the Applicant.

Orders pronounced, recorded vide separate sheets.

In the result, this application is allowed and disposed of.

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

HYDERABAD BENCH – I, HYDERABAD

IA (IBC) No. 329 of 2026

In

CP (IB) No. 111/7/HDB/2017

(Under section 42 of the IBC, 2016, read with Rule 11 of National Company

Law Tribunal Rules, 2016)

IN THE MATTER OF M/s. Lanco Infratech Ltd.

Between:

Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & GST

CT & GST Circle, Cuttack I East, OSFC Tower,

OMP Square, Cuttack, Odisha - 753003

…Applicant

Versus

Ms. Anuradha Bisani,

Liquidator of M/s. Lanco Infratech Ltd

1-2-49/ Flat No.202, Chetan Abode Domalguda,

Himayat Nagar, Near Veera Showroom,

Hyderabad, Telangana - 500029

… Respondent

Date of Order: 16.04.2026

Coram:

Sri Rajeev Bhardwaj, Hon’ble Member (Judicial)

Sri Sanjay Puri, Hon’ble Member (Technical)

Parties/Counsels:

For Applicant : Mr. Anand Das, Advocate

Liquidator : Ms. Anuradha Bisani

1. The present application is filed by Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & GST, CT & GST Circle, Cuttack-I East1Applicant (Formerly known as Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & GST), under section 42 of the IBC2Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, 2016, read with Rule 11 of NCLT Rules3National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, against Ms. Anuradha Bisani4Liquidator/Respondent, Liquidator of M/s. Lanco Infratech Ltd 5Corporate Debtor, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs:

i) To condone the delay in filing proof of claim before the Respondent -Liquidator;

ii) To direct the Liquidator to process the claim submitted by the applicant Tax Department as per the provisions of the Code.

Brief Submissions of the Applicant:

2. It is submitted that the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Lanco Infratech Ltd., was carrying on its business activities of execution of works contract as well as trading activities in the State of Odisha having its place of business located within the district of Cuttack and was registered within the jurisdiction of the Applicant under the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, Orissa Entry Tax Act and Central Sales Tax (Odisha) Rules.

3. It is submitted that the Corporate Debtor for its business activities within the State of Odisha has been assessed for various Tax periods from 01/04/2011 to 30/06/2017 under the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, Orissa Entry Tax Act as well as the Central Sales Tax (Odisha) Rules after issuing statutory notices to the Corporate Debtor and accordingly assessment orders and demand notices were communicated to the Corporate Debtor and total arrear statutory tax dues including interest and penalty stood at Rs.740,20,84,616/-.

4. It is further submitted that owing to failure of the Corporate Debtor to pay the tax dues, the Applicant Department issued various show cause notices from time to time for payment of the tax dues and also initiated recovery proceeding and has also issued arrear intimations for the periods 01/10/2015 to 31/03/2016 and 01/04/2016 to 30/06/2017 vide notices dated 24/07/2020.

5. It is stated that the said notices issued by post as well as by email could not be served in the registered address of the Corporate Debtor whereafter the Applicant Department enquired into the matter and also asked Sri Sachitra Kumar Das, learned Advocate who usually appears on behalf of the Corpor

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top