Adjudicating Authority dismisses CIRP petition due to genuine pre-existing dispute

The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the Appellant's petition for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) as it found a genuine pre-existing dispute regarding the debt claimed. Emphasizing that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is not meant for recovery in the presence of a real dispute, the Authority upheld the Corporate Debtor's position. Citing relevant case law, the Authority concluded that the debt was not undisputed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the debt claim by the Appellant.
2. Existence of a genuine dispute regarding the debt.
3. Compliance with the requirements under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Debt Claim by the Appellant:
The Appellant, a trader of iron and steel, supplied goods to the Corporate Debtor (CD) and raised invoices amounting to Rs. 30,21,749/-. After accounting for debit notes raised by the CD for quality issues, the Appellant claimed an outstanding amount of Rs. 26,89,290/-. The Appellant argued that this amount became due and payable on 05.05.2019 and that the CD has defaulted in making the payment despite multiple reminders and a demand notice issued on 01.07.2019.

2. Existence of a Genuine Dispute Regarding the Debt:
The CD raised a dispute regarding the input tax credit (ITC) involved in the transactions. The CD cited a circular issued by the Commissioner of CGST Tax and Central Excise, Kolkata, which identified one of the suppliers, M/s. Rathank Retails Pvt. Ltd., as a non-existent and fictitious company involved in issuing fake invoices. The CD expressed concern that if the ITC availed by the Appellant from this supplier is disallowed, it would result in a significant financial liability for the CD. The CD requested the Appellant to provide a bank guarantee for the GST amount involved, which the Appellant refused.

3. Compliance with Requirements under the IBC for Initiating CIRP:
The Adjudicating Authority analyzed whether the debt was due and undisputed, as required under Sections 8 and 9 of the IBC. The Authority noted that the CD had raised a genuine dispute regarding the ITC issue within a reasonable period, even though the reply was received after the statutory period of ten days. The Authority found that the dispute was real and not spurious, as the CD's apprehensions about the ITC were legitimate. The Authority also observed that the CD was willing to pay the outstanding amount upon the provision of a bank guarantee by the Appellant, which indicated a bona fide dispute.

Conclusion:
The Adjudicating Authority concluded that the debt was not undisputed and that a genuine pre-existing dispute existed between the parties. The Authority emphasized that the IBC is not intended to serve as a recovery forum and that the presence of a real dispute precludes the initiation of CIRP. The Authority upheld the CD's position and dismissed the Appellant's petition for initiating CIRP, citing the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kirusa Software Pvt. Ltd., and Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited Vs. Equipment Conductors and Cables Limited. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

---