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
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Tribunal upholds Resolution Professional's decision, emphasizing IBC supremacy over tax acts.</h1> <h3>Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes LGSTO Versus Mr. Alok Kailash Saksena Resolution Professional of Associate Décor Limited, Punjab National Bank (Formerly Oriental Bank of Commerce), Union Bank of India, Bank of Baroda, Mohammed Enterprises (Tanzania) Ltd., Svamitva Landmarks</h3> Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes LGSTO Versus Mr. Alok Kailash Saksena Resolution Professional of Associate Décor Limited, Punjab National Bank ... Issues Involved:1. Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in dismissing the Appellant's application on the grounds of res judicata.2. Whether the Appellant's statutory demand has a 'First Charge' over the Corporate Debtor's property.3. Whether the Resolution Professional erred in waiving statutory dues without approval from the concerned revenue authority.Summary:Issue 1: Res JudicataThe Appellant, Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, filed a claim for Rs. 54,46,13,819/- in respect of GST liability, which was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority on the grounds of res judicata. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant had previously moved the Adjudicating Authority with similar reliefs in IA No. 134/2020, which was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the Appellant is prohibited from agitating the same grounds again due to the principle of res judicata and estoppel by conduct.Issue 2: First ChargeThe Appellant argued that its statutory demand should have a 'First Charge' on the property of the Corporate Debtor. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in the Rainbow Papers case and noted that the Appellant is not a 'secured creditor' under the IBC. The Tribunal highlighted that Section 82 of the KGST Act and CGST Act makes a specific exception to the provisions of the IBC, and thus, the Appellant's claim does not have a 'First Charge' over the Corporate Debtor's property.Issue 3: Waiving of Statutory DuesThe Appellant contended that the Resolution Professional erred in waiving statutory dues without approval from the concerned revenue authority. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Ebix Singapore Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Committee of Creditors of Educomp Solutions Ltd., which emphasized the role of the Adjudicating Authority in ensuring compliance with Section 30(2) of the IBC. The Tribunal found that the Resolution Professional's actions were in accordance with the IBC and did not constitute a breach of the relevant statute.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Appeal, holding that the Appellant's contentions were devoid of merit and that the Adjudicating Authority's order was free from any legal errors. The Tribunal emphasized the overriding effect of the IBC over the KGST Act and CGST Act, and upheld the Resolution Professional's actions in rejecting the Appellant's claim.