Tribunal dismisses late claims, upholds Insolvency Code. Corporate Debtor to pay dues promptly.

The Tribunal held that claims not submitted before the approval of the Resolution Plan are not valid. Claims filed by the Respondent post-approval of the Plan were dismissed. The Tribunal emphasized the overriding effect of Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code over other laws. The Respondent's argument that government revenue cannot be extinguished was rejected. The Corporate Debtor was directed to confirm timely payment of statutory dues. The Tribunal set aside the Respondent's claims and instructed strict implementation of the Resolution Plan, with a compliance report due in 15 days.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Extinguishment of demand by the Respondent.
2. Claims not filed during the CIRP period.
3. Overriding effect of Section 238 of IBC over other laws.
4. Compliance with statutory dues by the Corporate Debtor.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Extinguishment of Demand by the Respondent:
The Corporate Debtor (CD) requested the extinguishment of the Respondent's demand of Rs. 7,22,23,736/- and any other demand prior to 20th September 2018. The Tribunal noted that the approved Resolution Plan clearly stated that any claim or demand prior to the effective date (20.09.2018) shall stand extinguished. The Respondent, however, argued that government revenue cannot be extinguished by request and cited relevant sections of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in the Essar Steel case, held that claims not submitted before the approval of the Resolution Plan are not tenable.

2. Claims Not Filed During the CIRP Period:
The Tribunal observed that the Respondent did not file its claim during the CIRP period despite necessary paper publications asking stakeholders to submit their claims. The Respondent filed its claim on 10.09.2020, long after the Resolution Plan was approved. The Tribunal held that the claims filed by the Respondent post-approval of the Resolution Plan cannot be entertained, reiterating that all claims must be submitted to and decided by the Resolution Professional to provide certainty to the Resolution Applicant.

3. Overriding Effect of Section 238 of IBC Over Other Laws:
The Respondent acknowledged that Section 238 of IBC overrides the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to the extent of inconsistency. The Tribunal affirmed that Section 238 of IBC has an overriding effect over all other laws, including the CGST Act, 2017. The Tribunal denied the Respondent's contention that government revenue cannot be extinguished under any process of law, emphasizing the supremacy of IBC provisions.

4. Compliance with Statutory Dues by the Corporate Debtor:
The Tribunal directed the Petitioner to file an affidavit within 15 days confirming that all current statutory dues, including EPF, Income Tax, and GST, are being paid without delay. This was to ensure compliance with statutory obligations post-approval of the Resolution Plan.

Order:
The Tribunal concluded that the claims filed by the Respondent after the approval of the Resolution Plan are not tenable and set aside the claims amounting to Rs. 12,24,29,371/-. The Resolution Applicant was directed to implement the Resolution Plan strictly and file a compliance report within 15 days confirming the payment of all current statutory dues. The IA No.19 of 2020 was disposed of with these observations and directions.

---