The Assistant Commissioner vs Avishek Gupta Rp M/S. Sps Metal Cast & ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 869 of 2021
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal reasoned that a claim filed more than a year after the last date for receipt of claims, without satisfactory explanation for the delay, does not warrant appellate interference with the Adjudicating Authority's rejection of that claim; on that basis the appeal against rejection of a belated claim in insolvency proceedings was dismissed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
The Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax, CGST & CX ...Appellant
Versus
Avishek Gupta Resolution Professional ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant: Mr. Vaibhav Joshi, Advocate. For Respondent: Mr. Arik Banerjee, Mr. Abhishek Sikdar, Advocates with Mr. Avishek Gupta, RP in person.
ORDER
(Virtual Mode)
26.11.2021: This Appeal has been filed under Section 61 challenging the
order dated 08.07.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National
Company Law Tribunal) Kolkata Bench, Kolkata. The Appellant's claim has
been rejected by the Resolution Professional and thereafter Application was
filed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax, CGST & CX before the
Adjudicating Authority, which Application too has been rejected by the
impugned order.
2. The Learned Adjudicating Authority has noted that the last date of
receipt of claim was 11.07.2019 and in the Application filed by the Applicant
it has been stated that they came to know about CIRP proceeding on
19.01.2020 but they have filed the claim on 22.02.2021 i.e. after more than
one year. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that it was duty of the
Resolution Professional to see all records and notice the claim. 2
3. The only question that needs consideration in the present Appeal is
whether the Adjudicating Authority committed error in rejecting the
Application filed by the Appellant.
4. There being gross delay in filing the claim by the Appellant, we see no
reason to entertain this Appeal. There is no error committed by the
Adjudicating Authority in rejecting the claim of the Appellant. Appeal is
dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Justice Jarat Kumar Jain] Member (Judicial)
[Dr. Alok Srivastava] Member (Technical) Archana/nn.
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 869 of 2021
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