TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 305
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent Order : PAO / MBZO-II / 02 / 2019 dated 18.06.2019 passed by the Deputy Director, Mumbai Zonal Office-II, Directorate of Enforcement, respondent No.2 herein, under sub-Section (1) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, "the PMLA") whereby, the movable properties, i.e. 6170 Nos. of commercial vehicles of M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Logistic Limited (Corporate Debtor), have been provisionally attached under the provisions of the PMLA for a period of 180 days from the date of the order with the further condition that the said properties shall not be removed, parted with or otherwise, dealt with, without the prior permission from the said authority. 2.1 Learned advocate Ms. Kruti M. Shah for the petitioners referring to the order passed in Writ Petition (ST) No.280 of 2021 between Raman Roadways Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra & others, submitted that a petition with similar facts was moved before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and the matter of Provisional Attachment dated 18.06.2019 in relation to movable properties of 6170 vehicles of the Corporate Debtor was dealt with. She stated that 4826 trucks which had been taken away by the Offic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aims under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 15 of the IB Code and Regulation 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (ii) moratorium was ordered under Section 13(1)(a) of the IB Code prohibiting certain acts, as specified in Section 14 of the IB Code. Thereafter, the Insolvency Resolution Professional filed an application under Section 33 of the IB Code before the NCLT in I.A. No.411 of 2018 in C.P. (IB) No.89 of 2017 seeking liquidation of the Corporate Debtor Company. After hearing both the sides, the NCLT passed the order dated 19.11.2018 by which the Insolvency Resolution Professional was appointed as "Liquidator" under Section 34(1) of the IB Code. The Liquidator took over custody and control of all the assets of the Corporate Debtor under Section 35(1)(b) of the IB Code and thereafter, issued the E-Auction Sale Notice on 08.02.2019. The petitioners herein participated in the auction proceedings and purchased certain number of vehicles, for which the Official Liquidator has issued "Certificate of Sale of Movable Property" in their favour. Pursuant thereto, the Official Liquidator informed the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect vehicles has caused severe financial loss and undue hardships to the petitioners, as the petitioners had purchased the vehicles by obtaining by obtaining huge loans from third parties and the value of the vehicles lying in the parking yard would depreciate by each passing day. 6.1 Learned advocate Ms. Shah submitted that though the petitioners had purchased the vehicles through E-auction, their names have not been entered in the R.T.O. records and therefore, the petitioners are not able to sell or ply the vehicles. The petitioners are staring at huge financial loss and they would have to close down its business, if the vehicles are not transferred in their names as every passing day would further deteriorate the physical condition of the vehicles. It was, therefore, submitted that the order of attachment passed by the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA was unjust and improper. 6.2 Learned advocate Ms. Shah further submitted that taxes are levied on vehicles using the road and not on vehicles which did not use the road at all. Thus, the use of roads by the vehicles is a relevant factor for the levy of taxes. In this context, she has placed reliance upon a decision of the Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... their names. By relying on the documents produced by the respondent Nos.5 & 6 - Regional Transport Offices at Vadodara and Surat respectively, it is contended that the petitioners have not completed necessary documentation and have also not paid the mandatory amount of taxes / fees prescribed under the relevant rules and therefore, their names could not be entered in the R.T.O. records. It was, accordingly, urged that no relief may be granted in favour of the petitioners. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Gundecha appearing for Mr. Narendra Jain appearing for respondent No.4 - Official Liquidator submitted that the petitioners had purchased the vehicles in the E-auction proceedings conducted in pursuance of the order passed by the NCLT. He submitted that by complying with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder can get ownership of the vehicles transferred in their names. The Official Liquidator had already made a request to the respondent - Regional Transport Offices of Gujarat for the withdrawal of the Provisional Attachment Order so as to permit transfer of the vehicles as and when the relevant papers are submitted by the buyers. 10. Learned advocate Mr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atutory dues, which come within the meaning of 'operational debt', could be claimed against the Corporate Debtor only under the provisions of the IB Code and not under any other law. All such claims have to be lodged with the Official Liquidator and are payable under the waterfall mechanism provided in Section 53 of IB Code. The petitioners have produced on record the demand Notice issued against the Corporate Debtor by one of the respondent Regional Transport Offices claiming payment of taxes in respect of some of the subject vehicles. However, the amounts so due from the Corporate Debtor, considering that these are statutory dues in respect of the vehicles which were sold by the Official Liquidator and which belong to the Corporate Debtor, would not be in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder, but would necessarily have to be under the provisions of the IB Code. In other words, the dues relatable to the vehicles belonging to the Corporate Debtor can only be recovered under the provisions of the IB Code, i.e. the waterfall mechanism under Section 53 of the IB Code and not from the petitioners, being the auction purchasers. The petitioner....