2025 (11) TMI 1448

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9;the Tribunal') by which an application filed by the Appellant bearing I.A No. 541 of 2022 in CP (IB) No. 566/Ahm/2019 under Section 54 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (in short 'Code') with a prayer to dissolve the CD, has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of this case are that M/s Prutha Enterprises (FC) filed an application under Section 7 of the Code against the CD which was admitted on 17.09.2019 and the Appellant was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, since the resolution could not take place, therefore, liquidation order was passed by the Tribunal on 28.09.2020. 4. The Appellant after the liquidation, distributed the proceeds in the following manner :....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ax Department and therefore, judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State Tax Officer (1) Vs. Rainbow Papers Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.1661 of 2020 and Civil Appeal No.2568 of 2020 will not apply to the facts of this case and Adjudicating Authority may take appropriate decision. List for hearing before regular Bench on 16.08.2023 7. However, the Tribunal, while relying upon a decision in the case of Rainbow Paper (Supra) and a decision of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Assam Company India Ltd., CA (AT) (Ins) No. 243 of 2022 decided that the Income Tax department is a secured creditor, therefore, at the time of distribution, the Appellant as the liquidator, should ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not have any charge created on the demand of the Income Tax, therefore, the decision in the case of Rainbow Papers (Supra) is not applicable. The Income Tax Department did not challenge the order dated 28.06.2023 before the Higher Court if the said statement was not correct. 9. Be that as it may, during the pendency of this appeal, we thought it fit to issue notice to the department and in this regard, passed the following order :- "28.02.2025 This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.05.2024 by which an application filed by the Appellant (Liquidator) in I.A. No. 541 of 2022 in C.P (IB) No. 566 of 2019 under Section 54 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with a prayer to dissolve the CD i.e., M/s. Origin Formul....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... List on 14.04.2025." 10. As per office report, notice was served upon the Income Tax Department but no one has put in appearance on its behalf either in the pre lunch session when the case came up for hearing and then it was passed over to be taken up in the post lunch session and at that time also no representation was made on its behalf. 11. The reason appears to be obvious because the statement had already been made by Counsel appearing on behalf of Income Tax Department on 28.06.2023, noticed in the previous part of this order, that the department has no charge against the demand of income tax, therefore, the decision in the case of Rainbow papers (Supra) is not applicable. 12. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and....