https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98428 A liquidation claim filed after a 787-day delay was rejected because Regulation 12(2)(b) requires claims to be lodged or updated within the prescribed time, and insolvency law treats timeliness as central to the liquidation process. Even if the timeline were treated as directory, an inordinate delay still needed a satisfactory explanation, which was absent here. The pendency or abatement of customs proceedings did not bar filing the claim before the liquidator, and a government department was not entitled to any special indulgence in condonation of delay. Entertaining the belated claim at an advanced stage would disrupt the liquidation process, so the rejection was upheld. en-us Sat, 04 Apr 2026 10:25:12 +0530 Sat, 04 Apr 2026 10:25:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98428 A liquidation claim filed after a 787-day delay was rejected because Regulation 12(2)(b) requires claims to be lodged or updated within the prescribed time, and insolvency law treats timeliness as central to the liquidation process. Even if the timeline were treated as directory, an inordinate delay still needed a satisfactory explanation, which was absent here. The pendency or abatement of customs proceedings did not bar filing the claim before the liquidator, and a government department was not entitled to any special indulgence in condonation of delay. Entertaining the belated claim at an advanced stage would disrupt the liquidation process, so the rejection was upheld. Highlights IBC Sat, 04 Apr 2026 10:25:12 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98428