Commissioner of State Tax Department vs Ramchandra Dallaram Chaudhary Liquidator of M/s Anil Ltd.
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 34 of 2024 & I.A. No. 105, 106, 990 of 2024
Facts:
1. Appeal against the Order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (in short ‘Adjudicating Authority’) in IA No. 735/NCLT/AHM/2023 in IA No. 435/NCLT/AHM/2023 in CP(IB) No. 66/NCLT/AHM/2017, whereby the Adjudicating Authority rejected the application of the Appellant to treat its claim as Secured Creditor during the liquidation under waterfall arrangement as stipulated in Section 53 of the Code.
Issue: Whether the order passed is correct ?
Arguments:
Appellant:
1. Counsel submitted that in the present case there was no enforcement of taxes but the demand notices are issued only as assessment made by the Appellant which are legally payable dues by the Corporate Debtor and no further actions were taken by the Appellant post the demand notice
2. It was submitted that t merely because the equivalent provision of Section 48 of the VAT Act was not present in Sales Tax Act does not take away his rights to be treated as Secured Creditors. It was submitted that t further assailed the conduct of the Respondent who rejected the claims of the remaining assessments years on the ground that these would be hit by Section 14 of the Code. It is the case of the Appellant that the estimated date of closure of CIRP was 19.02.2018 and thereafter the Appellant decided to issue demand notices after giving dates and thus the new demand notices were issued by the Appellant are not hit by Section 14 of the Code.
Respondent:
1. Counsel submitted that he had issued the detailed letters to the Appellant on 22.06.2023 and 26.06.2023 and clarified position of the various claims of the Appellant which was in conformity that Rainbow Papers.
2. It was submitted that Appellant was treated as Secured Creditor to the extent that he was illegible and remaining portion of the claims were not treated as Secured Creditors but these were treated as Unsecured Creditors and would be also governed under Section 53 of the Code.
Decision: NCLAT upheld the order.
Rationale:
1. NCLAT noted that from the information given by the parties that total 13 claims were submitted by the Appellant for the period 1994-95 onwards with total tax dues amounting to Rs. 1001,72,32,359/- and the Respondent considered the tax demands of Rs. 42,99,15,943/- relating to AY 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 as Secured Creditors and the remaining claims of the Appellant were accepted but not as Secured Creditors and have treated as Unsecured Creditors which amount to Rs. 958,73,16,448/-
2. It held that there was a gap in the claims made by the Appellant pertaining to AY 2011-12 which has not been claimed by the Appellant. A pointed query was raised by us to the Appellant to explain the same particularly whether there is no claim or the claim has been settled. However, we did not get any answer to this from the Appellant.
Order:
