AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 802
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bench-III) in IB-741(ND)/2021. By the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has rejected I.A. No. 5488 of 2023 filed by the Appellant seeking recall of the order dated 30.08.2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority approving the resolution plan of the Corporate Debtor. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant-State Taxes & Excise Department (Government of Himachal Pradesh). 2. Capturing the factual matrix, we notice that the Corporate Debtor-M/s Radiant Castings Pvt. Ltd. was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP" in short) following which Interim Resolution Professional ("IRP" in short) was appointed. The Appellant-Joint Commissioner of State Taxes & Excise, Himachal submitted a claim of Rs 2.61 Cr. before the Resolution Professional ("RP" in short) in Form-C along with proof of claim. The resolution plan of the Corporate Debtor had been approved by the Committee of Creditors ("CoC" in short) in the 16th meeting held on 30.05.2023 with 70.02% voting share following which the resolution plan had been approved by the Adjudicating Authority on 30.08.2023. The total admitted claim of Operational Creditors ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant to contend that their claims had not been considered. The Appellant had only filed claims of Rs 2.61 Cr. which claim was duly considered and admitted by the RP. The Appellant had never actually filed their claims of Rs 13.60 Cr. regarding alleged tax arrears. Further, the Appellant was all along aware of its status as Operational Creditor and never objected for not having been treated as Secured Creditor. The present recall application was therefore only a disguise to restart the CIRP having failed to file their claims on time. It was asserted that the Adjudicating Authority had rightly relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ebix Singapore Pvt. Ltd. Vs CoC of Educomp Solutions Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 3224 of 2020 which held that once a resolution plan is approved, the same becomes binding on all stakeholders unless the same is challenged. In the present case, the resolution plan had not been challenged by the Appellant. It was also submitted that the amount of claim allocated and disbursed to the Appellant was in accord with the provisions of IBC. Allowing their belated claim to be admitted at this stage will create hurdles in the implementation of the plan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Adjudicating Authority on 30.08.2023 which included the admitted claims of the Appellant. The Appellant had only filed claims for Rs 2.61 Cr. and no further claims was ever filed by the Appellant. The Appellant had never raised the issue of whether the GST Department is a Secured Creditor or not and this contention has been raised only after the plan has been approved. Moreover, the plan has already been implemented. The recall application has been filed with the ulterior motive of restarting the CIRP so that GST Department could include its belated claims. The Adjudicating Authority has rightly relied on the Ebix judgment supra to hold that once a resolution plan is approved, the same is binding on all the stakeholders unless the same is challenged which was not done by the Appellant. 9. At this stage it may be useful to notice how the Adjudicating Authority treated the recall application filed by the Appellant. The Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order held that the prayers in the recall application cannot be allowed as it would amount to review of the orders passed on 30.08.2023 exercise of which review powers are beyond their jurisdiction. The Adjudicating Authorit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on process and cause prejudice to the interest of the other creditors/stakeholders beside jeopardizing the commercial and financial viability of the plan. Neither the statutory provisions nor the judicial precedents have dispensed with the filing of such claims on time. If belated claims are allowed for any specific party, there is all likelihood from others to also seek reopening of the claim window. In these circumstances, we are inclined to agree with the Adjudicating Authority that allowing the belated claims of the Appellant will open flood gates of the multiple such claims. The Adjudicating Authority has not committed any error in the given facts and circumstances in not acceding to the request of the Appellant for admission of their belated claims. In the absence of credible and genuine grounds extending the delay, it does not commend us to overturn the findings of Adjudicating Authority. 12. It is well settled law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 531 and in RP Infrastructure Limited vs. Mukul Kumar & Anr. (2023) 10 SCC 718 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that belated claim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on over other statutes. In the present case, there is no such overriding effect of the HPGST Act over IBC. In such circumstances, the claims of the GST Department would qualify as "Government Dues" under Section 53(1)(e)(i) of the IBC. It was also submitted that in the Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. Raman Ispat Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. in C.A. No. 7976 of 2019, the Hon'ble Supreme held that State cannot be treated as a Secured Creditor and any distribution of State Dues has to be done under Section 53(1)(f) of the IBC which places the "Government Dues" below in the waterfall mechanism. 15. Contention has been raised by the Appellant that the ratio of the Paschimanchal judgement supra would not apply in the present case since Section 82 of the CGST/HPGST Act states that any amount payable to the government shall be a first charge on the property of any person. It was also stated that Paschimanchal judgment is not applicable in the present case, since in that case the issue was of a contract between parties for supply of electricity and did not relate to state or government taxes. 16. We have no quarrel with the fact that statutory dues and obligations are required to be me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ulting in gross failure of justice. None of these three criteria set out for recall were pleaded by the Appellant before the Adjudicating Authority. The power to recall a judgment cannot be exercised when none of the aforesaid grounds required for recall were ever pleaded by the Appellant. It is a well- established principle that once the Resolution Plan has been approved by the CoC, no new claims including statutory dues can be allowed. Once the plan is approved by CoC, it is binding on all stakeholders, including government bodies and statutory authorities, in accordance with Section 31 of the IBC. In the present case, when the resolution plan had been approved by the CoC with 70.02% voting, the Adjudicating Authority had no option to traverse beyond the commercial wisdom of the CoC. Having noticed the statutory framework and the purpose and objective of the IBC, we are of the considered view that the approval of a resolution plan is statutorily recognized as a closure to all claims that persons or entities may have against a corporate Debtor. There is a concomitant need to impart finality to the resolution process by protecting a successful resolution applicant from unnecessary ....