Tribunal directs GST filing post-CIRP, restrains court action during moratorium

The Tribunal disposed of an application under IBC for GST filing during CIRP, directing the State GST Department to accept physical filing of returns post-CIRP commencement. The Resolution Professional was tasked with completing such filings within three weeks. In a separate urgency matter, the Tribunal restrained coercive action by a native Court Officer regarding a payment order to the Corporate Debtor, citing the impermissibility of actions during the moratorium. The Tribunal deemed a court order invalid in light of the moratorium, emphasizing compliance with IBC provisions and cooperation with the Resolution Professional.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application under Section 14, 17(1) (d) read with Sections 18, 20 & 60 of IBC, 2016 for seeking appropriate direction regarding GST filing during CIRP.
2. Urgency in execution proceedings before the Court regarding payment by Corporate Debtor during CIRP.
3. Validity of the order passed by the Court of Learned ADJ-I in light of the moratorium under Section 14 of IBC, 2016.

Issue 1: Application under IBC for GST Filing during CIRP:
The Tribunal heard submissions on an application under Section 14, 17(1) (d) read with Sections 18, 20 & 60 of IBC, 2016 regarding GST filing during CIRP. The application was disposed of with a direction to the State GST Department to accept physical filing of returns after the commencement of CIRP. The Resolution Professional was directed to complete the physical filing of GST returns relating to the period after the commencement of CIRP within three weeks. Additionally, the State GST was advised to follow IBC provisions for claims prior to the commencement of CIRP.

Issue 2: Urgency in Execution Proceedings during CIRP:
In a specific matter of urgency regarding execution proceedings before the Court, the Resolution Professional highlighted the need for intervention due to a court order directing the Corporate Debtor to pay a specified amount. The Resolution Professional argued that the court's order was void and contrary to the provisions of Section 14 and Section 238 of IBC, 2016. Citing a Supreme Court case, it was emphasized that actions against Corporate Debtors during the moratorium period are impermissible. The Tribunal directed the native Court Officer not to take coercive steps and to cooperate with the Resolution Professional.

Issue 3: Validity of Court Order in Light of Moratorium under IBC:
The Tribunal addressed the validity of the order passed by the Court of Learned ADJ-I in the context of the moratorium under Section 14 of IBC, 2016. The Resolution Professional argued that the court's order was void ab-initio and non-est in law due to non-compliance with the moratorium provisions. Citing a Supreme Court ruling, it was emphasized that proceedings against Corporate Debtors during the moratorium are legally invalid. The Tribunal directed that the order passed by the Court of Learned ADJ-I was null and void, instructing against coercive actions and urging cooperation with the Resolution Professional.

This comprehensive analysis of the Tribunal's judgment highlights the key issues addressed, the legal arguments presented, and the directives issued by the Tribunal in each specific matter brought before it.

---