The Assistant Commissioner Of Gst& ... vs Udaya Narayan Mitra (Resolution ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1994 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Appellate Tribunal holds that, where a claim is filed 1215 days after the limitation period and the Committee of Creditors had already approved the resolution plan before the claim was filed, the mere assertion that the delay arose from departmental issues, together with the claimant's status as a statutory authority, does not constitute sufficient cause to condone an inordinate delay, and the rejection of the belated claim application is therefore upheld.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: The Office of the Assistant Commissioner, GST & Central Excise ...Appellant Versus Udaya Narayan Mitra, (RP of ARSS Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Umesh Chandra Sahoo, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr. Chitranshul A. Sinha, Mr. Shivam Shorewala, Ms. Rakshita Bhargava and Ms. Esha Sharma, Advocates for RP.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
29.01.2026: Heard counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 29.08.2025 passed
by the adjudicating authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Cuttack
Bench), by which order, application filed by the appellant I.A. (IB)
No.113/CB/2025 in C.P. (IB) No. 34/CTB/2021, to accept the belated claim
has been rejected.
3. The appellant has filed its claim in Form-B on 16.04.2024 with a delay
of 1215 days. The adjudicating authority after hearing the parties has
dismissed the application, aggrieved by which order, this appeal has been
filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the delay was caused
due to departmental issues and it is a claim of statutory authority, hence
adjudicating authority ought to have condoned the delay in filing the claim.
5. We have considered the submissions of the appellant and perused the
records.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that resolution plan was
approved by the CoC on 16.09.2023 and has also been subsequently approved
by the adjudicating authority on 29.08.2025 and the plan has already been
implemented.
7. After having heard counsel for the parties, we are of the view that there
was no sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate delay of 1215 days in
filing the claim. Claim was filed on 16.04.2024, before that CoC has already
approved the plan on 16.09.2023, we are of the view that there was no good
ground made to interfere with the impugned order.
Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) himanshu/md
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1994 of 2025 2 of 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