https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308915 A State tax claim under the Maharashtra VAT Act did not override the insolvency waterfall under Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code because Section 37 makes the first charge expressly subject to any Central Act. The approved resolution plan therefore remained effective, and the admitted tax claim could not defeat the distribution scheme in insolvency. The text distinguishes the Gujarat VAT precedent on the basis that its charging provision used materially different language and lacked the same express subordination to Central law. en-us Tue, 07 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Aug 2023 08:20:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308915 A State tax claim under the Maharashtra VAT Act did not override the insolvency waterfall under Section 53 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code because Section 37 makes the first charge expressly subject to any Central Act. The approved resolution plan therefore remained effective, and the admitted tax claim could not defeat the distribution scheme in insolvency. The text distinguishes the Gujarat VAT precedent on the basis that its charging provision used materially different language and lacked the same express subordination to Central law. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Tue, 07 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308915