Liquidation claims must exist at commencement; a later tax demand cannot be admitted or reopen the stakeholders list.

An additional tax claim raised long after the liquidation commencement date could not be admitted in liquidation because claims are assessed with reference to liabilities existing on that date, and a post-commencement demand is not an existing liquidation liability. Acceptance of the belated claim would also have required revision of the already prepared stakeholders list and would have delayed the liquidation process, contrary to the insolvency framework. The earlier admitted claim was not in dispute; only the later additional demand was rejected. No revision of the stakeholders list was warranted, and the application was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an additional tax claim filed long after the liquidation commencement date could be admitted in liquidation; (ii) Whether acceptance of such a belated claim would require revision of the stakeholders list.

Issue (i): Whether an additional tax claim filed long after the liquidation commencement date could be admitted in liquidation.

Analysis: The application sought admission of an additional demand raised after the liquidation commencement date. The claim was found to have been filed well beyond the stipulated time and, more importantly, the liability itself had arisen after commencement of liquidation. Claims in liquidation are to be considered with reference to the position existing on the liquidation commencement date, and a post-commencement demand cannot be treated as an existing liability for admission in the liquidation process.

Conclusion: The belated additional claim was not admissible.

Issue (ii): Whether acceptance of such a belated claim would require revision of the stakeholders list.

Analysis: The stakeholders list had already been prepared and filed after admission of the original claim. Entertaining a fresh post-commencement claim at that stage would necessitate revision of the list and would delay liquidation, contrary to the scheme and objective of the insolvency regime. The original claim already admitted by the liquidator was not in dispute; only the later additional demand was rejected.

Conclusion: No revision of the stakeholders list was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The application was rejected because the additional demand arose after the liquidation commencement date and could not be introduced into the liquidation process at that stage.

---