2021 (4) TMI 1239 - HC - Companies Law

Seeking direction to transfer ownership of 153 trucks (subject vehicles) in favour or in the name of the Petitioner - seeking exemption from payment of tax on account of non-use - recovery of tax dues from the corporate debtor in respect of whom an order of liquidation had been passed by the NCLT - waterfall mechanism under Section 53 of the IBC - overriding effect of IBC over other acts - HELD THAT - The subject vehicles were sold in an auction conducted by the Respondent No. 4 as liquidator who had taken custody and control of the subject vehicles under Section 35 of the IBC. The impugned Demand Notices were thereafter issued in the name of Respondent No. 4 seeking payment of tax under MMVT Act in respect of the subject vehicles. The second impugned demand notice dated 19th June, 2020 claimed the sum of ₹ 4,94,48,347/- under Section 9(3) of the MMVT Act read with Rule 24 of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules. It is observed that Rule 24 of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules has infact been deleted and thus a wrong provision has been invoked in the second impugned demand notice dated 19th June, 2020 - Further, the impugned Demand Notices were not issued to the Petitioner. The tax dues were stated to be recoverable from the corporate debtor in respect of whom an order of liquidation had been passed by the NCLT on 19th November, 2018. There are no substance in the submission of the learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that the statutory dues of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, which are in respect of the subject vehicles would follow the subject vehicles and the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 can claim their statutory dues from the purchaser of the subject vehicles - the dues relatable to the subject vehicles belonging to the corporate debtor can only be recovered under the provisions of IBC viz. waterfall mechanism under Section 53 of the IBC and not from the Petitioner as purchaser. There are no substance in the preliminary issue raised by the learned AGP for the State as to the maintainability of this Petition. Section 14 of the MV Act, 1958 provides any person who is aggrieved by any order of the Tax Authority, may file an Appeal before such person or authority, in such manner within such time and on payment of such fees as may be prescribed . In the present case the Petitioner is not a person aggrieved as the impugned demand notices had been issued in the name of Respondent No. 4 as liquidator in respect of the subject vehicles. Thus there is no demand for payment of tax made against the Petitioner - Respondent No. 3 is compulsory required to lodge its claim with Respondent No. 4, the liquidator after which the liquidator would verify the same and either admit or reject the claim in full or part. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 would thus be entitled to payment as per the waterfall mechanism under Section 53 of the IBC. Thus it is the case of the Petitioner that the impugned demand notices could not have been issued by placing reliance on the MMVT Act. The IBC has overriding effect under Section 238 read with Section 53 thereof which will prevail over any demand made under Section 8 of the MMVT Act. There are no substance in the submissions of learned AGP that the subject vehicles cannot be transferred under Section 50 of the MMVT Act, 1988 till the statutory dues in respect of the subject vehicles are discharged. The recovery under Section 8 of the MMVT Act and registration and transfer under Section 50 of the MMVT Act are two separate an independent functions and as such they cannot be interlinked - In the present case it is clear from the facts on record as well as the provisions of the IBC that it would be necessary for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to lodge their claims before the Respondent No. 4 as liquidator of the corporate debtor. The impugned demand notices which seek payment of the tax dues under the MMVT Act would also require to be quashed and set aside - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Transfer of ownership of 153 trucks.
2. Quashing of tax demand notices dated 16th June 2020 and 19th June 2020.
3. Allowing physical verification and renewal of fitness certificates for the trucks.
4. Applicability of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) over Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (MMVT Act).
5. Jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Officer (RTO) in issuing tax demand notices.
6. Non-user application under Section 3(3) of the MMVT Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Transfer of Ownership of 153 Trucks:
The Petitioner sought the transfer of ownership of 153 trucks purchased in an auction conducted by the liquidator (Respondent No. 4) under the IBC. The Court noted that the trucks were sold by the liquidator who had taken custody and control of the vehicles under Section 35 of IBC. The Court directed the Respondents to transfer the ownership of the vehicles to the Petitioner, emphasizing that the recovery of statutory dues should follow the waterfall mechanism under Section 53 of the IBC.

2. Quashing of Tax Demand Notices Dated 16th June 2020 and 19th June 2020:
The Petitioner challenged the tax demand notices issued by the RTO (Respondent No. 3) for the payment of taxes on the trucks. The Court found that the impugned demand notices were issued in the name of the liquidator and not the Petitioner. It was observed that statutory dues, which fall under 'operational debt', must be claimed against the corporate debtor in liquidation under the IBC. The Court quashed the tax demand notices, stating that the claims should be lodged with the liquidator and settled under the waterfall mechanism of Section 53 of the IBC.

3. Allowing Physical Verification and Renewal of Fitness Certificates for the Trucks:
The Petitioner sought permission to approach the local RTO for physical verification and renewal of fitness certificates for the trucks. The Court directed the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to approach the local RTO for these purposes, emphasizing that the recovery of statutory dues and the process of registration and transfer are independent functions.

4. Applicability of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Over Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (MMVT Act):
The Court highlighted that the IBC has an overriding effect over other laws, including the MMVT Act, as per Section 238 of the IBC. It was noted that statutory dues should be claimed under the IBC's provisions and settled through the waterfall mechanism. The Court referenced several Supreme Court decisions, including Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd., to support the precedence of the IBC over other laws.

5. Jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Officer (RTO) in Issuing Tax Demand Notices:
The Court examined whether the RTO had jurisdiction to issue tax demand notices against the corporate debtor in liquidation. It was concluded that the RTO lacked jurisdiction to issue such notices, as the claims should be lodged with the liquidator under the IBC. The Court emphasized that the IBC's provisions override the MMVT Act, and the RTO should follow the liquidation process for recovering dues.

6. Non-user Application Under Section 3(3) of the MMVT Act:
The Petitioner filed a non-user application under Section 3(3) of the MMVT Act, claiming that the trucks were not in use and thus not liable for tax. The Court noted that this application was pending and directed the Respondents to consider it in accordance with the law. The Court also directed the Petitioner to pay 50% of the statutory dues from the date of purchase, subject to the outcome of the non-user application.

Conclusion:
The Court ruled in favor of the Petitioner, directing the transfer of ownership of the trucks and quashing the tax demand notices. It emphasized the overriding effect of the IBC over the MMVT Act and directed the Respondents to lodge their claims with the liquidator. The Court also allowed the Petitioner to approach the RTO for physical verification and renewal of fitness certificates, and directed the Respondents to consider the non-user application.