TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant (erstwhile resolution professional) was entitled to liquidator fees at the rates of the first/second bucket or third bucket under Regulation 4(2) of the CIRP (Liquidation) Regulations, 2016 and whether amounts withdrawn in excess are liable to be refunded with GST and interest.
Analysis: The adjudicating authority examined the invoices and the appellant's computation and excluded an aggregate period of 495 days (including COVID-19 related closure and other claimed exemptions) for determining the effective period of liquidation. The appellant sought additional exclusion of 141 days for resumption of auctions after a medical accident; that exclusion was not supported by record. On the appellant's own timeline the realisations occurred after one year from the liquidation commencement date and therefore the applicable fee rates correspond to the third bucket under Regulation 4(2). Detailed arithmetic in the impugned order applied the third-bucket percentages to the net realisations and distributions, computed total fees payable, compared the sum already withdrawn by the appellant, and identified an excess withdrawal. The adjudicating authority directed refund of the excess amount plus GST and interest at 12% p.a. where not paid within the prescribed period.
Conclusion: The appellant is not entitled to fees at the first or second bucket rates; fees are payable as per the third bucket under Regulation 4(2) of the CIRP (Liquidation) Regulations, 2016. The amounts withdrawn in excess are liable to be refunded with GST and interest. The appeal challenging the order is dismissed and the adjudicating authority's calculation and refund direction are upheld.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
