Joint Commissioner Of State Tax vs Shetkari Sakhar Karkhana Chandapuri ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 568 of 2021
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is not vitiated merely because a government creditor, such as a state tax authority, receives only a fraction of its claim (here 4.98%) under the plan, where the adjudicating authority has considered the plan and the allocation to that creditor was made as the plan provided, so that the shortfall alone is no ground for setting aside the approval.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 568 of 2021 IN THE MATTER OF: Joint Commissioner of State Tax ...Appellant Vs. Shetkari Sakhar Karkhana (Chandapuri) Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Mr. Aaditya Pande, Advocates For Respondent: Mr. CS Prashant Thakre, Mr. CS Sanjay Patare, Advocates for R1 Mr. Durgaprasad Halwai, Mr. Karl Shroff, Advocates for R2
ORDER
(Through Virtual Mode)
02.12.2021: Heard Shri Rahul Chitnis, Learned Counsel for the Appellant.
This Appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority
(National Company Law Tribunal) Mumbai Bench, Court-I dated 22.01.2021 by
which the Application filed by the Resolution Professional for approval of the
Resolution Plan has been allowed. The Appellant before us is Department of
State Tax who has also filed their claim regarding Value Added Tax, Central Sales
Tax as well as GST. Total claim was Rs.21,08,000/- out of which in the
Resolution Plan only 4.98% was paid to the Appellant. The Resolution Plan has
been approved by the Adjudicating Authority after considering all aspects of the
matter. It is also not disputed that with regard to claim of the Appellant, 4.98%
of claim was allocated and paid as per the Resolution Plan.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 568 of 2021 1
2. We do not find any error in the judgment of the Adjudicating Authority
approving the Resolution Plan. The mere fact that the Appellant could receive
only 4.98% of their clam in the Resolution Plan could not be a ground to set aside
the acceptance of Resolution Plan. We do not find any merit in the Appeal. The
Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)
[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical) Shashi/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 568 of 2021 2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free