TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 1045
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....common order as all of them emanate from the 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Corporate Debtor to establish a wood based industry 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 Applicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the Issuer Bank Amount of BG (Rs.) Expiry of BG Govt. of Karnataka 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.  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndent has verified the resolution plan submitted by a resolution applicant, M/s. METL and placed the same for approval before the CoC. The said Respondents 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) Reg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sr. No. Financial Creditor Admissible Amount Voting Percentage 1 Oriental bank of Commerce (Now Punjab National Bank) 1,38,68,90,516.00 24.16% 2 Bank of Baroda 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tend the guarantee or pay any claim against the said expired guarantee. The said Bank has shared these correspondence with the Resolution Professional on 04.02.2021 and the same are annexed to the Statement of Objections. The Applicant is guilty of suppression of above-mentioned material 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) that claims not included in the Resolution Plan will stand extinguished once the Plan is approved by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority - which admittedly has not yet happened in the present case. (4) It is stated that the RP had not followed the provisions 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 pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore us in this CP, vide order dated 22.12.2020. Subsequently, on 04.03.2021, when the Writ Petition was listed, the Hon'ble High Court directed the Applicant to file an application before this Tribunal in respect of its claim, within seven days. It was made clear that the interim order passed by this Court shall 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 P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....btor to keep the same alive, though the same had become 'stale' after the expiry of the term. We are also of the view that the Applicant's claims preferred before the RP vide the Claim Form cannot in any manner be affected in law on account of purported non extension of the bank guarantees. (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 di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Claims of the Applicant as a 'Secured Financial Debt' in its Audited Balance Sheets, as also for the reasons mentioned above, there is no reason for the RP to contend that the same is not a financial debt. 9. Hence, we are of the view that the Respondent's argument that no actual money was disbursed for the time value 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 verif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Hon'ble High Court. As per its directions, the present Application and the claim in Form C has been filed during the course of these proceedings. The same, however, is filed before the approval of the Resolution Plan of METL by the Adjudicating Authority. Besides, as far as the timelines for submissions are concerned, we find that this 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te the claims otherwise the dues reflected in the books of accounts would be rendered completely meaningless......" (5) The Hon'ble NCLAT in its order in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 291 of 2018 in M/s. Prasad Gempex vs. Star Agro Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. where the RP had rejected its claim 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 f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce, since the timelines referred to in Reg. 12(2) are held to be directory in nature the claim made by the financial creditor even after the last date has to be put up by the RP to the CoC for its consideration/acceptance, in the light of our observations in the foregoing paragraphs and the Claim filed in Form C, after the directions of the Hon'ble High Court. 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, As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to the above cited subject and further to your telephonic discussion, after going through the available documents in Virtual Data Room and non - availability of Audited Financials of Corporate Debtor M/s. Associate Decor Ltd., and on further preliminary due diligence from our end, have decided not to participate in submission of Resolution Plan of the Corporate Debtor M/s. Associate 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.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; (1) It is submitted by the RP that under Regulation 36A CIRP Regulations 2016 and under the authorization of the CoC, Form G was initially issued on 10.06.2019 and was revised and reissued on 23.08.2019, 07.09.2019 and 25.09.2019 seeking a Resolution Plan with last date for submission of EOI as 30.11.2019 which was later extended to 07.12.2019 as authorized 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of CIRP, enumerating the exceptional circumstances under which the CIRP can be extended. Further, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble NCLAT in para 25 in the matter of Mr. Sharad Sanghi v. Ms. Vandana Garg & Others in Company Appeal (AT) Insolvency No. 461/2018, where it was held that once CoC voted in favour of the Resolution plan, it cannot change its views later, as also reiterated 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 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shall also consider whether independently a case is made out for issuing directions to the RP, as prayed in IA 227. 8. The first question that arises for our consideration in IA 227 of 2020 is as to whether the process followed by the RP during the CIRP was as per the provisions of the Code and the Regulations, as also as per the objectives of the Code. (1) As per 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 expec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omplete information does not imply that a legal and just process has been followed. Further, the RP having allowed the Applicants to view the data on the VDR cannot be taken as fulfilment of the requirements of the Code and the Regulations. We also do not find mention of any efforts made by the RP himself or seeking directions from this Tribunal to the CD for furnishing the full details of financials etc., in spite of 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 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..............................This being the case, judicial review of the Adjudicating Authority that the resolution plan as approved by the Committee of Creditors has met the requirements referred to in Section 30(2) would include judicial review that is mentioned in Section 30(2)(e), as the provisions of the Code are also provisions of law for the time being in force. Thus, while the Adjudicating Authority cannot interfere on merits 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 pl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch as audited accounts and details of creditors, as required by Reg. 36, as mentioned above in the present case in IAs 227. Other issues raised through this case are also discussed below as not being applicable. Similarly, the case of Chhattisgarh Distilleries is also clearly inapplicable as no directions are being given to the RP or the CoC to consider a Plan with higher investment. As of now, we have not considered the details of either 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 c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; (8) The above are only a few cases which reaffirm our considered position, that not only the Plan submitted by the Swamitva Landmark group should have been taken on record and put up to the CoC and considered by it on its own, and if the same was commercially better, recall the Plan already submitted vide IA 161 of 2020, and resubmit the better Plan for our approval. And also put up the claim of the Financial creditor for 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 cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the IM and EOI; and rejection of any resolution plan that fails to provide for payment of the Applicant's claim. This IA was pending before this Authority even prior to the end of 270 days. Some issues in this matter are still before the Hon'ble High Court. (4) In view of the severe Covid 19 Pandemic that hit countries across the globe, leading to closure of industries, offices, courts, halting movement 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 Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ays and time to accept/consider the Resolution Plan submitted by Swamitva Landmark group rather than oppose its consideration by the CoC. 14. Thus, whether the RP carries out our directions in the period granted by us exercising our inherent powers u/s. 60(5) of the Code, or by utilizing the remaining period out of 330 days (after excluding the period w.e.f. 05.03.2020 till the receipt of this order), the material point is that limitation of time shall not come 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....10.2018 but the Returns were manually filed on 20.10.2018 and not in the prescribed manner on GST portal. As there was bonafide error in crediting payment towards KGST instead of IGST liability, the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 13.09.2019 directed the Respondent No. 2 to file a refund application for wrongly credited amount which could then be appropriated towards its IGST liability. Moreover, the 2nd Respondent was directed to file its monthly returns within a week. 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en returns are not filed. (2) It is further stated that the Respondent has complied with the above order and once the entire GST liability is paid and the returns filed pursuant to the interim orders of the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 40326-40364/2018, the Best Judgment Assessment Orders passed under section 62(1) are rendered infructuous, as they get merged with the Order dated 13.02.2019 of the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore there 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 orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as still pending and regular demand was yet to be ascertained/determined. 8. However, it has to be said that when the Commercial tax department was raising and enforcing a demand (though coercive steps for recovery were not approved by the Hon'ble High Court), the RP should have ensured that the IM provided for a clause to the effect that if on regular assessment some demand was raised, such liability may have to be factored by the RAs, especially when the matter was still sub judice, subject of 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 als....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 51/BB/2018 is disposed of with the directions that the claim filed by the Applicant, the State of Karnataka, Department of Industries & Commerce as a Financial Creditor, in Form C, shall be put up by the RP to the CoC for its consideration/acceptance, in the light of our findings and decision in the foregoing paragraphs. Reconstitution of the CoC will also be considered by the RP. (2) IA227 of 2020 C.P. (IB) No. 51/BB/2018 is disposed of with the directions that the Resolution Plan submitted by Swamitva Landmark, Shankeshwar Landmarks LLP and Shankeshwar Landmarks, shall be placed before the CoC along with the Resolution Plan filed by METL and submitted for our approval in IA 161, for the CoC's evaluation and approval, strictly keeping in mind the objects of the Code, and superior commercial viability. The Resolution Plan approved out of the two by the CoC shall be submitted to us for our consideration and approval. (3) IA 248 r/w IA 225 C.P. (IB) No. 51/BB/2018 is disposed as infructuous as IA 225 has already been disposed of. However, the issues raised by the erstwhile Promoters sha....