TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1343
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the Companies Act, sought to expand its business and participated in an auction by Rasoya Proteins Ltd., then under financial distress. Following the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench order dated 27.06.2017 commencing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, the liquidator took control of the company's assets and on 09.11.2020 issued a sale notice to auction them on an "As Is Where Is, As Is What Is And Whatever There Is" basis. 4. The petitioner, declared the highest bidder, paid the entire sale consideration and was issued the Letter of Intent and Letter of Possession. After a public announcement inviting claims, Respondent No. 3-aware the suit could not proceed due to liquidation-submitted its claim to Respondent No. 2, who admitted it for payment under the insolvency process. Accordingly, no attachment entry should have been made in the property card. 5. Respondent No. 2 informed the petitioner that the property would be sold free from all encumbrances as per the IBC and NCLT orders. The petitioner, as auction purchaser, complied with all terms, paid the full consideration, and executed a sale deed with Rasoya Proteins Ltd., confirming that the pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der or the court in that regard." 11. The petitioner has challenged the revenue entry made by Respondent No. 1 through this writ petition, despite having an alternate, efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code before the Sub-Divisional Officer, which remains unavailed. 12. Gat Nos. 348, 349, 350, 351/1, and 316 of Mouza Wanjari belonged to Respondent No. 2 - Rasoya Proteins Ltd. Respondent No. 3 - Ashok Ratanlal Khatod filed Special Civil Suit No. 32/2015 against Respondent No. 2 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kelapur, and registered a notice of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act (Document No. 2354/2016 dated 08.08.2016) with the Sub-Registrar. Pursuant to this, Mutation Entry No. 1986 was made in the revenue record. The suit is still pending. 13. Respondent No. 2 submitted that he came to be appointed as Liquidator on 30.10.2018. After his appointment the claims were called from all the claimants of Rasoya Proteins Limited (Corporate Debtor) in terms of the Public Announcement made by the Liquidator in accordance with the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short the "Cod....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usand Three Hundred Twenty Five only). 16. Respondent No. 4 contends that Respondent No. 2, while filing an email with pursis, claimed to have obtained permission to execute the sale deed in favour of the successful bidder, subject to payment of State revenue as per law. The State Tax Department had initiated proceedings before execution of the sale deed. Respondent No. 2 allegedly failed to disclose encumbrances in violation of the Transfer of Property Act. It is further stated that the sale proceeds remain with Respondent No. 2, from which statutory dues are payable. The email dated 15.03.2021 was a response to the Official Liquidator's request for a no-objection to registration post-sale. 17. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties at length. Perused the documents placed on record and considered the citations relied on by both the parties. 18. The learned Counsel for Petitioner submitted that Respondent No. 2 was obliged to deposit the sale proceeds into the State Tax Account but failed to do so. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Court direct Respondent No. 2 to deposit the sale proceeds towards the State Tax Account. 19. The petitioner submits that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ues. 24. The answering respondent submits that the tax liability is not upon the petitioner but on the property of Respondent No. 2, who was required to clear such dues before sale. Though no comment is made on the pending civil suit, statutory dues not stayed remain enforceable, rendering the property liable to attachment. The encumbrance recorded in 2018 should have prompted Respondent No. 2, as Resolution Professional, to verify title and obtain clarification from the authorities. Nevertheless, in his undertaking dated 14.12.2020, he claimed ignorance while assuring the petitioner of clear title at his own expense. 25. The Petitioner knew the corporate debtor's case was pending before the High Court in Company Petition No. 769 of 2017 and admitted that the defaults predated 2015. Though the company was ordered to be wound up on 27.06.2017, statutory procedures under the Companies Act with the Registrar of Companies had to be completed. Recovery proceedings by the State Tax Department commenced shortly after winding up, during the transitional phase when the matter shifted from the High Court to the NCLT. Since recovery and NCLT proceedings ran concurrently and the property....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 this Court held that, "19. ..........The State amendment to section 52 further protects the interest of the land holders in the State and whenever the notices of pending suits or proceedings referred to in section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is given under section 18 of the Registration Act, the Land Revenue Code makes it imperative for the Officer recording such a registration to forward an intimation to the talathi of the village. The avowed purpose of such an intimation is to keep the Talathi of a village or tahsildar of a taluka updated about the dealings in respect of a piece of land, in respect of which he is duty bound to maintain the revenue record. In such circumstances, the decision of the State Government not to effect entries of lis pendence in the record of rights is perfectly in tune and spirit with the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and we do not find that the said decision calls for an interference by exercising our writ jurisdiction. The petitioners are merely apprehensive that if such entries are not recorded in the 7/12 extract, the people in the rural area would be deprived of being in know-how of the pending litigation about the property ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any Local Authority, guarantors and other stakeholders. On the date of approval of resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all such claims, which are not a part of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan". In the said Judgment it is further held as under : "The purchaser will not responsible to pay any due amount to the government / Bank / Financial Institute / Semi Government Office / GST Department / VAT Department / Labour Department / Central Excise Department / Income Tax Department or any other Government Department or to the Gram Panchayat or any other public body or authority in respect thereof since the same will fall under the waterfall mechanism and will be dealt with in the manner specified in Section 53(1) of the IBC, 2016". 34. In the present matter, official Liquidator already admitted the claim of the Re....