TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Orders Reassessment of GST Amount for Corporate Debtor</h1> <h3>State Tax Officer (Works Contract) SGST Department, Kerala State Versus Bijoy Prabhakaran Pulipra, Resolution Professional, PVS Memorial Hospital Private Limited</h3> State Tax Officer (Works Contract) SGST Department, Kerala State Versus Bijoy Prabhakaran Pulipra, Resolution Professional, PVS Memorial Hospital Private ... Issues Involved:Claim rejection under Regulation 14 of CIRP Regulation for GST liability assessment.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Claim Rejection under Regulation 14The State Tax Officer filed a MA as an operational creditor against a Corporate Debtor seeking to set aside the rejection of their claim by the Resolution Professional. The applicant claimed an amount of Rs. 28,41,59,349.06 for tax, interest, and penalty. The Resolution Professional initially admitted the total claim but later rejected a major portion based on the interpretation of GST liability on different revenue streams of the Corporate Debtor. The applicant contended that the rejection under Regulation 14 was not justified as there was no ambiguity in the claimed amount. The Resolution Professional, on the other hand, revised the admitted claim amount after receiving additional information from the suspended Managing Director of the Corporate Debtor regarding GST liability specifics. The matter was placed before the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for approval, which decided to file an appeal before the GST Commissioner to revisit the claim amount.Issue 2: Adjudicatory Power of Resolution ProfessionalThe applicant cited a NCLAT decision to argue that the Resolution Professional lacks adjudicatory power in determining GST claims. However, the Resolution Professional justified the revision of the admitted claim based on new information and the need to comply with Regulation 14(2) of the CIRP Regulations. The Tribunal acknowledged the ongoing dispute regarding the actual GST amount payable by the Corporate Debtor and directed the Resolution Professional to file an appeal before the Joint Commissioner for reassessment based on audited financial statements and relevant notifications.Conclusion:The Tribunal disposed of the matter by directing the Resolution Professional to appeal before the Joint Commissioner for reassessment of the GST amount payable by the Corporate Debtor. The decision highlighted the importance of resolving the dispute promptly to avoid further delays in recovering the GST amount.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
