TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 199
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Code') r/w Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016 (in short 'the Rules') by M/s Redamancy World/Operational Creditor for resolution of the amount of Rs. 1,24,95,015/- has been admitted and Mr. Vivek Sharma was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). 2. At the time of issuance of notice in this appeal on 07.08.2023, this court had passed the following order:- "1. Learned Counsel for the Appellant is permitted to implead the GST Department as Respondent No.3. Amended memo be filed within three days. 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submits that the principal amount for which the application was filed for Rs. 79,82,857/- was the amount which the Appellant has not disputed in reply to demand notice. However, Appellant's case is that the GST Department has written to the Appellant not to make the payment to the Operational Creditor. It is submitted that the proceedings having initiated against the Appellant, the Appellant has to reverse the entire input tax credit. 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has relied upon the order passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 6208/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot claim the interest of Rs. 14,12,857/-unilaterally as there was no agreement between the parties for payment of interest on delayed payments and thus, the application filed for the outstanding amount of Rs. 79,82,857/-, under Section 9 of the Code was not crossing the threshold of Rs 1 Cr. as provided in Section 4 of the Code. However, the Tribunal admitted the application, inter alia, holding that Directorate General of GST intelligence (Chandigarh Unit), vide reply dated 24.12.2020, had confirmed that they had issued letter dated 03.05.2019 to the CD and directed it to pay the dues directly to the bank account of Sh. Sanjay Goel, Proprietor of M/s Redamancy World/OC, therefore, non- payment of Rs. 79,82,857/- was unwarranted. 8. In so far as the component of interest of Rs. 45,12,158/- is concerned, the Tribunal has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Prashant Aggarwal Vs. Vikash Parasrampuria & Anr., CA (AT) (Ins) No. 690 of 2022 to hold that the interest on delayed payment is clearly stipulated in the invoice, therefore, it forms part of the debt. 9. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the CD had never admitted or acknowledged the liability of i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....D was constrained to make the payment of the entire alleged outstanding due of Rs. 79,82,857/- to the GST Department. It is also submitted that there was pre-existing dispute between the parties for non-payment of service tax dues by the OC and has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Feng Ji Vs. Giesecke & Devrient MS India Pvt. Ltd., CA (AT) (INS) No. 213 of 2023. Counsel for the Appellant has also argued that the case of the OC is based upon the order of the Hon'ble High Court in WP (C) No. 6208 of 2019 but the said order was passed after the impugned order was passed and cannot form the basis to contend that the CD defaulted in making payment of the dues at the time of issuance of demand notice dated 19.09.2020. 10. On the other hand, Counsel for Respondent No. 1 (OC) has submitted that the CD, in its reply dated 22.10.2020, issued under Section 8 of the Code, admitted the principal outstanding liability of Rs. 79,82,857/- and since there is a clause of payment of interest at the rate of 18% p.a in the invoice on account of delayed payment, the same has rightly been charged by the OC which comes to Rs. 45,12,857/- and thus the total amount comes to Rs. 1,24,95....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard Counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 14. The first and foremost issue in this appeal is as to whether the application filed under Section 9 was maintainable without including the interest in the total amount of claim, on the ground that interest is being charged on the basis of unilateral entry in the invoice without any other evidence on record of an agreement between the parties for payment of interest as claimed in the invoice on account of delay? 15. In this regard, there is no dispute that the principal amount of Rs. 79,82,857/- is less than the threshold of Rs. 1 Cr. and the interest component is of Rs. 45,12,857/- which is claimed by the OC on the basis of the entry in the invoice for charging interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on delayed payment. There is also no dispute that there is no other evidence on record which may suggest or indicate that the parties had agreed to pay 18% interest p.a. on the delayed payment of the invoice. Thus, the only evidence possessed by the OC is the invoice regarding which this Court, in the case of Rishabh Infra (Supra) and Shitanshu Bipin Vora (Supra), after taking into consideration the decisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f two FDs which have been noticed in the earlier part of this order is hereby directed to be refunded to the Appellant or his counsel after verification within a period of 30 days. ============= Document 1 माल और सेवाकर आसूचना महानिदेशालय, चंडीगढ़ आंचलिक ईकाई, Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence. Chandigarh Zonal Unit: Central Revenue Building, Plot No. 19. केंदà¥à¤°à¥€à¤¯ राजसà¥à¤µ à¤à¤µà¤¨ पà¥à¤²à¤¾à¤Ÿ नं. 19, Sector 17C, Chandigarh-160 017. सेकà¥à¤Ÿà¤° 17 -सी , चंडीगढ़-160 017. Tel. No. 0172-2971410 0172-2727519 Tel. No. 0172-2971410 0172-2727519 F.No.V(6)GSTI/CdZU/Inv/12/2018/ 826 Date: 14.05.2018 To M/s Sarika Industries Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 111. HPSIDĆ Industrial Area. Baddi, Solan(HP) Sirs, Subject: Investi....