Delayed tax claims under CIRP cannot reopen an approved resolution plan absent a statutory security interest.

A tax claim filed after the CIRP claim deadline and beyond the extended regulatory period cannot be introduced after approval of the resolution plan, because doing so would disturb the settled resolution process and impose a claim not included in the approved plan. The resolution professional may verify belated claims, and failure to pursue rejection before the appropriate forum further weakens the claim. The document also clarifies that secured creditor status cannot be claimed merely by invoking Rainbow Papers; a security interest must arise from the governing statute, and where Form-B itself discloses no security interest and no statutory charge exists, secured status is unavailable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a tax claim filed beyond the period prescribed under the insolvency framework could be admitted after the resolution plan had already been approved. (ii) Whether the appellant could be treated as a secured creditor notwithstanding its claim being filed in Form-B and disclosing no security interest.

Issue (i): Whether a tax claim filed beyond the period prescribed under the insolvency framework could be admitted after the resolution plan had already been approved.

Analysis: The claim was filed after the expiry of the public announcement deadline and also beyond the extended period contemplated under the CIRP Regulations. The resolution professional was entitled to seek supporting material to verify the belated claim, and the appellant did not pursue the rejection of its claim before the resolution professional or before the adjudicating authority despite notices and opportunities. Once the resolution plan had been approved, introducing a new claim would unsettle the resolution process and conflict with the settled principle that claims not forming part of the approved plan cannot be foisted on the successful resolution applicant.

Conclusion: The belated claim could not be admitted and the challenge on that ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant could be treated as a secured creditor notwithstanding its claim being filed in Form-B and disclosing no security interest.

Analysis: The appellant itself filed Form-B, which is the form for operational creditors, and recorded that no security interest existed. The reliance on the doctrine applied in Rainbow Papers did not assist the appellant because the existence of a security interest must flow from the governing statute, and the Income Tax Act did not create any charge or security interest in favour of the appellant on the facts of the case. The later authority confining the reach of Rainbow Papers reinforced that position.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to be treated as a secured creditor.

Final Conclusion: The approved resolution plan was not liable to be reopened on the basis of the appellant's delayed tax claim, and the appeal was unsustainable in law.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim not lodged within the CIRP timelines and not incorporated in the approved resolution plan cannot be revived after approval, and a secured status cannot be assumed in the absence of a statutory security interest.

---