TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 1045
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e actions of the Resolution Professional while conducting the CIRP in respect of the Corporate Debtor, Associate Decor Limited, and are directed against him. In all the IAs a common prayer is that the Resolution Plan submitted to this Adjudicating Authority for approval should not be approved until their respective prayers are considered/accepted by the CoC. 2. Before examining the individual IAs, we may observe that in the instant CP i.e., C.P. (IB) No. 51/BB/2018, apart from the present IA 85 of 2021 filed by the Government of Karnataka, Dept. of Industries and Commerce, four more IAs have been filed. IA 134 of 2020 is filed by Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, seeking an order setting aside the RP's order rejecting his entire claim for Rs. 54,46,13,819 and, to revise and issue a fresh information memorandum and the consequential Expression of Interest in the CIRP, and rejection of any resolution plan that fails to provide for payment of the Applicant's claim. IA 227 along with IA 225 of 2020 (for urgent hearing, and already disposed of), are filed jointly by Swamitva Landmarks group seeking directions to the RP for placing before the CoC their Resolution Plan ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stry for manufacture of "Particle Boards / MDF and Furniture Components etc., (Production Capacity of 3 Lakh Cu. Mtrs. per annum) with an investment of Rs. 495.29 Crs. in 60 acres of land at KIADB Industrial Area, IV Phase, Malur, Kolar District was approved and recommended for sanction of Special Incentives and concessions, in its proceedings of the 26th SHLCC (State High Level Clearance Committee) meeting on 09.11.2011. The Applicant issued the Govt. Order dated on 28.12.2011. A copy of the Govt. Order is annexed to the Application. (1) The Applicant issued a loan eligibility certificate to the unit for a sum of Rs. 226.87 Crs. (Rupees Two Hundred Twenty-Six Crore Eighty-Seven Lakhs only) to the Corporate Debtor as Interest free Loan subject to the terms and conditions contained in the Government's VAT Loan eligibility Certificate bearing reference No. I&C/ID/E3/Ass. Decor/VAT Loan/Kolar/67/ 2013-14 dated: 26.06.2013 and Corrigendum of even reference dated 23.07.2013. Copy of the Eligibility Certificate dated: 26.06.2013 and Corrigendum dated 23.07.2013 are annexed to the Application. Subsequently, the Applicant vide Government Orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 19.06.14 Corporation Bank 2,75,00,000 18.06.19 Govt. of Karnataka -2910IGFIN001715 31.03.15 Bank of Baroda 2,24,13,654 31.03.20 Govt. of Karnataka 19.01.16 Corporation Bank 4,34,01,847 19.01.21 Govt. of Karnataka -29101GFIN001716 08.08.16 Bank of Baroda 7,43,50,886 08.08.21 Govt. of Karnataka-29101GFIN001317 10.03.17 Bank of Baroda 4,03,77,909 10.03.22 TOTAL AMOUNT OF LOAN ARREARS 20,80,44,296 A Loan Agreement dated 05.08.2013 recording the incentives and concessions given to the corporate debtor was entered into. Copy of the Loan Agreement has been filed. (3) As per the terms of the loan agreement, the Corporate Debtor was required to keep the bank guarantee continuing, however, the Bank Guarantee for Rs. 2,75,00,000/-, was not renewed by the Corporate Debtor. It was in fact the obligation of the Corporate Debtor to ensure that the bank guarantee is alive as per the terms of the loan agreement. (4) On visiting the Office of the Corporate Debtor in this regard in February 2020, the Petitioner learnt that there ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents as the Committee of Creditors have unanimously accepted the said resolution plan on 11.2.2020 to restructure the Corporate Debtor. (9) Further, the Respondent approved waiver of the loan granted by the Applicant which in turn was further approved by the CoC, whereas, the Audited Balance Sheet of the Corporate Debtor for the Financial Year 2014-15 has reflected the Secured Loan liability arrears amount payable to the Applicant being a Secured Financial Creditor. (10) The Applicant filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, at Bengaluru bearing W.P. No. 14815/2020, the Court was pleased to grant an ad-interim stay of the proceedings vide order dated 22.12.2020. Subsequently, as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, dated 04.03.2021, the Applicant is submitting its claim in Form C under Regulation 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. The present application is submitted without prejudice to the submissions and stand taken by the Applicant in W.P. No. 14815/2020.on 04.03.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roda 1,99,23,73,126.75 34.67% 3 Corporation Bank (Now Union Bank of India) 2,36,42,54,748.00 41.18% 5,74,35,18,390.75 100.00% (3) It is submitted that no claim was received from the Government of Karnataka by the Department of Industries and Commerce (i.e., the Applicant herein) in respect of the VAT benefit/loan of INR. 20.84 Crore. Further, the time when the claims were made by the financial creditors, the Bank had also included the Bank Guarantee amount (which was in force then) in their claim with the RP. (4) In fact, the Government of Karnataka by its GST Department had earlier made frivolous demands as against the CD and attachments which also came to be challenged before the Hon'ble High Court in a series of writ petitions which came to be filed by the CD and subsequently on the basis of interim orders of the Hon'ble High Court, the state was directed to withdraw all such attachments. Even at such points of time, though the State was aware of the insolvency proceedings of the CD, the Applicant lodged no claim before the Respondent as mandated under the Code....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erial facts before this Bench and the IA needs to be dismissed on this ground alone. (7) The Applicant cannot be termed as a financial creditor at all as no money is loaned by it as mandated under the Code. The said VAT Loan Eligibility Certificate and the Loan Agreement issued to the CD is only in the nature of a benefit issued by the Department of Industries and Commerce and not a loan advanced to the CD. It is a part of the promotion policy of the State Government. Moreover, the Applicant themselves state that the said benefit/loan is interest free which itself would indicate that there was no concept of time value for money. (8) The Claim as a Financial creditor must come within the definition of a Financial creditor under the IBC 2016 and its Regulation. Further Section 5(8)of the Code defines Financial Debt as a debt along with interest, if any, which is disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money. Hence, the Applicant can no way be termed as Financial Creditor. In view thereof, the Applicant cannot as a matter of right, as sought to be done in the present Application, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of the Code or the Regulations. In this regard our attention has been drawn to Section 21 of the IBC, 2016, regarding constitution of the COC; Regulation 4 of the 'IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016', regarding accessing the books of account etc.; Regulation 8(2)(ii) regarding records being proof of debt; and Regulation 36 of the IRPCP Regulations, 2016 regarding examination of books of accounts prior to preparation of the IM. Reference here has been made to the Hon'ble NCLAT Judgment dated 24.01.2020 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 871-872 of 2019. (5) The legislative and judicial interpretations therefore clearly indicates that admitted claims reflecting in the books of accounts ought not to be rejected merely on account of non-submission of claim within the stipulated time period. For this reason alone, the claims of the Applicant ought to be allowed and the Applicant should be included as a part of the COC of the Corporate Debtor. (6) It is an admitted fact that the Audited Balance Sheets of the Corporate Debtor for the financ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hall not come in the way of the NCLT considering the application filed by the State Government. The present IA has been filed in compliance to the said order of the Hon'ble High Court. The Claim in Form C has also been filed. 8. The first question that arises for our consideration in IA 85 of 2021, is whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the liability of the Corporate Debtor to the Applicant State Govt. would amount to a Financial Debt? (1) It is the contention of the Respondent RP that 'there was no loan released at all as it was only a benefit/concession" and therefore the same cannot be categorised as a financial debt, and hence, the Applicant cannot be treated as a Financial Creditor nor be included in the CoC. Let us examine. (2) It is seen from the Petition that the State of Karnataka, Department of Industries & Commerce (the Applicant), as per the Industrial Policy of 2009 to 2014 decided to provide special incentive and concessions to business entities. The Applicant issued a Loan Eligibility Certificate to the unit of the corporate debtor for a sum of Rs. 226.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; (6) The argument of the Respondent RP that since there was no concept of time value of money in the loan agreement is further found untenable as the said loan was given to the Corporate Debtor on account of a special scheme under the Karnataka Industrial Policy which expressly qualifies as 'factoring of a discount in the payment'. Therefore, the Claims of the Applicant are in the nature of a 'Financial Debt'. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in its decision in 'Phoenix ARC Private Limited v. Spade Financial Services Ltd. and Ors.', 2021 SCC OnLine SC 51, at paragraph 50 of the decision, provided clarity on 'time value of money' by holding as under: "50. The report of the Insolvency Law Committee dated 26 March 2018 has discussed the interpretation of the term "time value of money" and stated: "The current definition of 'financial debt' Under Section 5(8) of the Code uses the words "includes", thus the kinds of financial debts illustrated are not exhaustive. The phrase "disbursed against the consideration for the time value of money" has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of money and that there was no financial debt has to be rejected and the said transaction has to be considered as 'Financial Debt' under Section 5(8) of the Code. 10. As per Section 21 of the Code the RP is required to constitute the COC "after collation of all claims received against the corporate debtor and determination of the financial position of the corporate debtor". The word "and" implies that both these conditions are to be fulfilled and the RP can proceed to form the CoC only after determination of the financial position of the corporate debtor. In terms of Regulation 4 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 the RP is mandated to "access the books of account, record, and other relevant documents and information, to the extent relevant for discharging his duties under the Code" and verify the creditors of the Corporate Debtor, which is basic to the CIRP process. Again, in terms of Regulation 8(2)(ii), the existence of debt due to a financial creditor may also be proved on the basis of "a record evidencing that the amounts committed by the financial creditor to the corporate debtor under a facility has been drawn by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his provision has been held to be directory in nature by various benches of the NCLT, and not mandatory. (2) The Principal Bench of the NCLT, New Delhi, in its decision in the case of Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Adel Landmarks Ltd. in (IB) - 1083(PB)/2018, vide order dt. 06.06.2019 has held as follows: "The claim of the applicant in these two applications have been rejected by the Resolution Professional on the ground of delay. We have repeatedly held that rejection of claim on the ground of delay is not sustainable because the provision has been held to be directory. In that regard reference may be made to the orders dated 01.05.2019 passed in CA-727(PB)/2019 in CP. No. (IB)-737(PB)/2018, Twenty First Century Wire Rods Ltd. & in the case of the corporate debtor itself on 30.04.2019 in CA-729(PB)/2019 where the same counsel for Resolution Professional has appeared. We wish to make it clear that all the Resolution Professionals shall make a note of these repeated orders passed by NCLT ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as 'financial creditor', and it was not placed before the 'Committee of Creditors', held that the RP has no jurisdiction to decide the claim of one or other creditor and the RP's order was set aside. Reliance was placed on the case of Dynepro Private Limited' vs. Mr. V. Nagarajan - Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 229 of 2018 etc' It was stated that as per section 60(1) of the Code, only the NCLT had the jurisdiction to adjudicate on issues of admission of a claim. (6) Further, in view of the provisions and the scheme of the IBC, 2016, the Hon'ble NCLAT in its Judgment dated 24.01.2020 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 871-872 of 2019 has categorically held that- "23. It is further observed in respect of Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 892-893 of 2019 & Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 924 -925 of 2019 that various claims are collected by the Resolution Professional during the CIRP process by inviting the claim from individual, organisations etc. But there are several micro claimant as also large claimants like Government claim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Reconstitution of the CoC will also be considered. It is directed accordingly. II. IA No. 227 of 2020: 1. IA No. 227 of 2020 in C.P. (IB) No. 51/BB/2018 is filed by Swamitva Landmarks and 2 others, (hereinafter referred to as 'Applicants') U/s. 60(5) of the I&B Code, 2016 read with Rule 32 and Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal, Rules, 2016 inter alia seeking direction to the Resolution Professional to place the Resolution Plan submitted by the Applicants for consideration before the Committee of Creditors of the Corporate Debtor; and decide the present application before hearing the RP under section 30 and 31 of the Code, 2016. 2. The Oriental Bank of Commerce filed a petition under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 seeking initiation of CIRP against the Corporate Debtor, Associate Decor Limited, and the same was allowed vide order dated 26.10.2018. Thereafter the Resolution Professional invited the 'expression of interest' for submission of Resolution plan, in Form-G vide newspaper advertisement dated 23.08.2019. Copy of the newspaper advertisement is annexed to the Application. 3. The Applicants are a consortium of firms led by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssociate Decor Ltd., which is due on 11th Nov, 2019." (3) In spite of this e-mail the RP failed to provide the audited Balance Sheets. As the Applicants were keen to expand their business and wanted to submit a viable resolution plan, they engaged their own resources and obtained the details required from the MCA. The RP was informed that they are in the process of preparing a Plan in the interest of all stakeholders and for maximisation of the value of assets, for submission to him. However, due to the nationwide lockdown imposed on account of the coronavirus pandemic on 24.03.2020, and ensuing difficulties, sometime was consumed in finalising the Resolution Plan which was submitted to the Resolution Professional by email dated 27.05.2020. Vide e-mail dated 26.05.2020 the RP was requested to place the Resolution Plan before the CoC for its consideration. Copy of the email dated 27.05.2020 along with copy of sealed envelope containing the Resolution plan dated 26.05.2020 is annexed to the Application. (4) The Applicant's reminder mail dated 16.06.2020 to the Resolution Professional for placi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthorized by CoC in 14th CoC meeting dated 28.11.2019. The Applicants submitted their EOI on 06.09.2019 and the same was reconfirmed vide emails dated 24.09.2019, 03.10.2019 and 12.10.2019. (2) It is submitted that RP issued Information Memorandum, Evaluation Matrix and Request for Resolution Plan to all the Resolution Applicants including the Applicants on 09.10.2019 and the Virtual Data Room access was provided to the Applicants on 15.10.2019. Further it is stated that as per clause 1.10.5 of the Request for Resolution Plan (RFRP), of the Corporate Debtor was to be resolved on an "as is where is" basis with the available data and resources as available with the Corporate Debtor at the time of invitation for the resolution plan. Further, up to the last date of submission of plans being 07.12.2019, the Corporate Debtor has audited accounts only for FY 2014-15 which was updated with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Unaudited and provisional balance sheets for FY 2015-16 to 2018-19 were provided. Details of all assets and an opportunity to all prospective Applicants to do the "due diligence" was provided. All the Resolution Applicants had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the NCLT Mumbai Bench in MA 2104/2019 in the matter of The Karad Urban Co.-op. Pvt. Ltd. v. Khandoba Prasanna Sakhar Karkhana Limited. Para 7 of the decision has been quoted to state the Applicant cannot be allowed to file the Resolution plan after the completion of 270 days, that too after the application for approval of Resolution plan has already been filed before this Bench, when the CoC has already taken a decision in its commercial wisdom, which cannot be changed or altered. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble NCLAT in the case of Chhattisgarh Distilleries vs. Dushyant Dave and Ors. (company Appeal (At) (Ins) no. 461 of 2019)] to state that the AA cannot direct the CoC to consider the second Resolution plan submitted before the Authority although the second Resolution Applicant is ready to invest more amounts in comparison to the first Resolution Applicant. The role of the Adjudicating Authority in matters challenging the decision of CoC, accepting or rejecting the resolution plan is limited to the grounds mentioned in section 30(2) and the purely commercial decisions of CoC cannot be adjudicated by the Adjudicating Authority as they are non-ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Regulation 36(2)(b) of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process of Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016, the Information Memorandum shall contain, among other details "the annual financial statements". Sub Regulation (2)(c) requires that the IM shall contain audited financial statements for the last two financial years and provisional financial statements for the current financial year. Sub Regulation (2)(d) requires that the IM shall also contain the list of creditors and the amounts claimed by them, etc. Details of the guarantees that have been given in relation to the debts of the CD shall also be provided as per Sub Regulation (2)(f). We emphasize that making these details available to the prospective resolution applicants is mandatory, without which they cannot be expected to make an accurate assessment of the CD and prepare a viable plan. (2) However, it is seen that as per the RFRP the Plan was to be admittedly submitted by the prospective Applicants on an "as is where is" basis, i.e. with the available audited financial data for only FY 2014-15; and only unaudited and provisional financial statements, i.e.. Balance Sheets and P&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the repeated requests by the prospective RAs. Out of 23 EOIs, only 2 could survive this irregular process. (6) We have cursorily gone through the minutes of the CoC meetings conducted by the RP. In the 3rd CoC meeting in February 2019, the RP had mentioned that he did not have access to the books of accounts of the CD, yet no steps were taken to get possession, as could have been done u/s. 19 of the Code. Only in August 2019 statutory audit for the years 2015-16 to 2018-19 was taken up, i.e., almost after a year of the CIRP commencement. But without these, the IM had already been made. Till the 13th meeting in November 2019, though requested by several RAs, the audited financial statements were not made available. In the 14th CoC meeting one of the RAs opted out for want of audited financial statements. In spite of several RAs demanding the audited financial statements, in the 15th meeting in December, the two Plans submitted were discussed. It was much after, in February that the statutory orders shared the audited accounts for the years 2015-16 onwards as is seen form the CoC meeting minutes. This left very little time to other RAs to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s with the commercial decision taken by the Committee of Creditors, the limited judicial review available is to see that the Committee of Creditors has taken into account the fact that the corporate debtor needs to keep going as a going concern during the insolvency resolution process; that it needs to maximise the value of its assets; and that the interests of all stakeholders including operational creditors has been taken care of. If the Adjudicating Authority finds, on a given set of facts, that the aforesaid parameters have not been kept in view, it may send a resolution plan back to the Committee of Creditors to re-submit such plan after satisfying the aforesaid parameters. The reasons given by the Committee of Creditors while approving a resolution plan may thus be looked at by the Adjudicating Authority only from this point of view, and once it is satisfied that the Committee of Creditors has paid attention to these key features, it must then pass the resolution plan, other things being equal." (Emphasis added). It was clearly laid down in the above case that if the Adjudicating Authority finds, on a given set of facts, that the pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her of the Plans. Our objection to the submission of a Plan is on the grounds that the process followed by the RP was not as per the laid down procedure because of which this Applicant in IA 227 was denied its legitimate right to prepare and submit a Plan in time. (5) In the decision of the Hon'ble NCLAT dated 04.09.2020 in the case of Dr. Siva Rama Krishna Prasad Krishna Industrial Corp. Ltd., in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 751 of 2020 it was clearly held that before the approval of any decision of the CoC by the Adjudicating Authority, the CoC could recall its decision and the same was permissible. Hence, the RP is incorrect in saying that the CoC cannot review its approval. In the instant case the Resolution Plan approved by the CoC and submitted for approval had not been approved by this Adjudicating Authority by the time the Swamitva Landmark group Resolution Plan was submitted on 27.05.2020. Had their Plan been put up before the CoC by the RP, which he was duty bound to do, the CoC could have exercised its option to recall the earlier Plan submitted by METL, if the Swamitva Landmark Plan was found to be more viable comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the consideration of the CoC. Since these actions were not taken by the RP, this Adjudicating Authority is not only capable but also duty bound to restore the matters back to the RP for putting all the matters discussed above before the CoC for its fresh consideration. 11. Having clearly stated that a Plan submitted after the CoC approval and submission of the same before the Adjudicating Authority, we emphasise that no time constraint can come in the way, as has been argued by the Respondent RP, for the following reasons. (1) Firstly, as we have elaborately dealt with, by exercising its inherent powers u/s. 60(5) of the Code, the Adjudicating Authority can restore a matter to the RP for consideration / reconsideration and resubmission of a Resolution Plan, allowing time to the RP to complete the proceedings and carry out its directions, for the fulfilment of the objects of the Code, after due deliberations in the CoC. In all cases which are so referred back to the RP, even if on technical grounds as mentioned in the Essar Steel case (supra), can it be said that the same cannot be restored to the RP because the Resolution Plan was sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of men and material, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo-motu proceedings in Miscellaneous Application No. 665/2021 in SMW(c) No. 3/2020 where it had previously vide order dt. 23rd March 2020 directed that the period of limitation shall stand extended w.e.f. 15.03.2020, for filing petitions/ applications/suits/ appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under Special Laws (both Central and/or State). The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 27.04.2021 has extended the limitation till further orders. In fact by the time the RP filed IA 161 and Swamitva Landmark group filed their Resolution Plan in May 2020, suo motu decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had already been delivered and become effective w.e.f. 15.03.2020, whereby all timelines already stood extended. Hence, the RP cannot take the plea that the CIRP period was over, or that there was no justifiable reason or circumstances that justified exclusion of time from the CIRP, leading to its extension. In view of the ongoing pandemic and intermittent lockdowns we have been liberally granting extension of time in view of our inherent powers u/s.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in the way of the RP in carrying out the directions given by us in this order. We find that in either circumstance, i.e. by the extension granted by us or exclusion of the period from 05.03.2020 till receipt of this order (and further due to the continuing lock down), the RP would get about 10 to 12 weeks to carry out our directions, which would be sufficient. 15. The period from 05.03.2020 till the receipt of this order stands excluded from the CIRP in view of the reasons discussed above, to facilitate the implementation of directions given in this order. 16. In the result, we come to the inescapable conclusion that the Plan submitted by Swamitva Landmark, Shankeshwar Landmarks, LLP and Shankeshwar Landmarks, has to be placed before the CoC for its consideration. I.A. No. 134 of 2020: 1. I.A. No. 134 of 2020 in C.P. (IB) No. 51/BB/2018 is filed by Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Applicant) being a statutory authority appointed under the provisions of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the 'KGST Act'), u/s. 60(5) of the I&B Code, 2016 read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal, Rules, 2016 by inter alia seeking an order setting as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k. In the order dated 13.02.2019 the best judgment assessment orders would stand cancelled if the returns were filed by the 2nd Respondent within a week of its IGST account being credited. The order only directs the 2nd Respondent to make an application for refund within one week from the date of order but the assessment was not cancelled. Further, the Applicant was directed to expedite and dispose the same within two weeks and it is also stated that the date of filing of returns by the Petitioner shall be within one week from the date of credit of the amount to the IGST account. The Applicant has also annexed copy of the Final Order dated 12.04.2019 in WP Nos. 40360-4/2018 to the Application to establish that there was no relief granted or direction issued vis-a-vis the aforesaid assessment orders. The High Court in the final order dated 12.04.2019 has recorded the submissions of the parties that the writ petitions are infructuous and stand disposed of. (3) The Applicant on realising that Associate Decor / Respondent No. 2 was undergoing CIRP by virtue of order of admission dated 26.10.2018 immediately filed Statement of Claim before the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is no amount payable. The Respondent No. 2 paid its net self-assessed GST liability of Rs. 26,51,88,879 and interest of Rs. 2,77,18,437. The RP submits that the Applicant's claim has been disputed in WP No. 45290/2019, and as such no disputed claim can be admitted. 4. The Applicant in its written submissions submits that: (1) that the best judgment assessment orders can be deemed to be withdrawn only if the valid monthly returns are filed within 30 days of service of the best judgment assessment order. In the instant case the Respondent has failed to do so. Further the contention of the Respondent that the assessment orders get merged into the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka is unacceptable as the said order only permits the 2nd Respondent to file its monthly returns belatedly. The best judgment assessment orders survive. (2) Further, on account of the rejection of the Applicant's claim the resolution plan that is sought to be approved does not provide for payment of the Applicant's claim of Rs. 54,46,13,819/- which is unjust. Hence the impugned order passed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... course to the provisions of section 53 of the Code. Since we have, in deciding IAs 85 of 2021 and 227 of 2020 given directions to the RP for placing various issues afresh before the CoC/reconstituted CoC, we dispose of IA 134 of 2020 with appropriate directions, mentioned later in this order, to both the Commercial taxes Deptt. as well as the RP in this regard, to safeguard the interest of the Creditor as well as to ensure that the principles governing the CIRP are met. IV. IA 248 in IA 225 of 2020: 1. IA 248 of 2020 is filed u/s. 60(5) of the Code seeking impleadment in IA 225 of 2020, by Mr. Farooq Ali Khan, being the Promoter and a shareholder in the Corporate Debtor and also being a member of the suspended Board of Directors of the Corporate Debtor. It is stated that it is vital that the most viable Resolution Plan be approved in line with the objects of the Code. The case of Vijay Kumar Jain vs. Standard Chartered Bank has been cited to say that the erstwhile Board of Directors has independent right to approach the AA, and that the outcome of these proceedings vitally affect it. Through its Counter Affidavit, the RP has stated that this IA is belated and vexatious and is fi....