<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (11) TMI 961 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781493</link>
    <description>The State Tax Department&#039;s claim under the statutory first charge in Section 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was treated as a security interest under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code after Rainbow Papers. Because the disputed amount had been reserved by the resolution professional and the State&#039;s status as creditor remained unresolved when the resolution plan was approved and implemented, the Tribunal held that the approved plan did not bar release of that amount to the State. It further held that directing payment from the reserved resolution proceeds did not modify the commercial terms of the plan, but applied the governing law to the pending classification issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2025 11:55:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=865011" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 961 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781493</link>
      <description>The State Tax Department&#039;s claim under the statutory first charge in Section 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was treated as a security interest under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code after Rainbow Papers. Because the disputed amount had been reserved by the resolution professional and the State&#039;s status as creditor remained unresolved when the resolution plan was approved and implemented, the Tribunal held that the approved plan did not bar release of that amount to the State. It further held that directing payment from the reserved resolution proceeds did not modify the commercial terms of the plan, but applied the governing law to the pending classification issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781493</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>