Sales Tax Department, State Of ... vs Aryavart Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors

Sales Tax Dapartment, State of Maharashtra. ...Appellant

Versus

M/s. Aryavart Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Ors. ...Respondents

Present

For Appellant: Mr. Prashant S. Kenjale Advocate.

For Respondent: Mr. Amit Kakri I/B Ajay Law Associates for Respondent No. 2

ORDER

24.07.2019 This appeal has been preferred by 'Sales Tax Department,

State of Maharashtra' against the Order dated 15th April, 2019, passed by the

Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) Mumbai Bench in

MA. No. 1376 &1397 of 2018 in CP No. 158/IBC/NCLT/MB/MAH/2017

whereby the Adjudicating Authority approved the Resolution Plan submitted

by the 'Osian India'- (2nd Respondent).

Mr. Amit Kakri learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd

Respondent (Osian India) rightly submitted that Sales Tax Department is one of

the 'Operational Creditor'.

-2-

The grievance of the Appellant is that the 'Resolution Plan' is

discriminatory as it reduced the claim of the appellant to Rs. 1,375,000/- in

place of admitted claim of Rs. 2,21,92,393/- towards JAG-VAT-D-008 Stock.

We find that the claims of 'Sales Tax Department' has been provided

with 6.1% of its claim whereas 'Commissioner of Customs' is provided with

5.1% of its claim. It is only the 'ESIC Employees Contribution'; 'ESIC

Employers Contribution'; 'Provident Fund Employees'; and 'Provident Fund

Employers'; are provided 100% of the amount.

S Creditors Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.) r. Category Type Name As per Claims Proposed by N books as on admitted Resolution o 19th Mar by IRP/RP Applicant . 2018 Assistant 23,213,315 22,192,39 1,375,000 Commissioner of 3 Sales Tax(JAG- VAT-D-008) Commissioner of - 2,157,809 111,000 Customs, JNCH, Nhava Sheva, 4 Other Governm ESIC Employees 19,427 19,427 Creditors ent Dues Contribution ESIC Employers 53,661 Claims not 53,661 Contribution submitted Provident Fund 1,285,288 1,285,288 Employees Provident Fund 2,689,494 Employers

Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No. 607 of 2019 -3-

The amounts towards 'ESIC Employees Contribution'; 'ESIC Employers

Contribution'; 'Provident Fund Employees' and 'Provident Fund Employer' do

not come within the meaning of the 'Operational Debt'. Therefore, the

Appellant - 'Sales Tax Department' claim an Operational Creditor cannot

equated with the ESIC Employees Contribution; ESIC Employers Contribution;

Provident Fund Employees and Provident Fund Employers and no

discrimination can be alleged.

In absence of any infirmity in the impugned order, this appeal is

dismissed. No costs.

[Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson

[Justice A.I.S. Cheema] Member (Judicial)

[Kanthi Narahari] Member (Technical)

mohan/sk

Company Appeal (AT)(Ins) No. 607 of 2019