2021 (1) TMI 1165 - Tri - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Jurisdiction - authority of Resolution Professional to file an appeal before the Joint Commissioner, GST, as part of the verification and determination of a claim submitted by the GST department in Form B - seeking clarifications as to whether the judgement, decree or order, if any, passed by the Appellate Authority under CGST Act pursuant to the Appeal, against the Corporate Debtor shall be binding on Corporate Debtor when the moratorium declared by the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal Bench by virtue of section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is in effect or not - seeking clarification whether the requirement of the pre-deposit mandated under Section 107 of the GST Act, shall be prejudicial to the interest of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, as the said Section is inconsistent with Regulation 13 and 14 of the CIRP Regulations due to the overriding effect of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 over the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. HELD THAT - After considering the entire gamut of the matter, this Tribunal disposed of application directing the Resolution Professional to file an appeal before the Joint Commissioner, that too on the submission of the Resolution Professional before this Tribunal that the CoC resolved to file an appeal before the GST Commissioner for revisiting the claim amount of the applicant. There is no error in the Order in application to be clarified by this Tribunal - application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Authority of Resolution Professional to file an appeal before the Joint Commissioner, GST for claim verification.
2. Binding effect of Appellate Authority's judgment on Corporate Debtor during moratorium.
3. Conflict between pre-deposit requirement under GST Act and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Analysis:
1. The Resolution Professional sought clarification on the authority to file an appeal before the Joint Commissioner, GST for verifying claims. The Tribunal directed the Resolution Professional to file an appeal based on CoC's decision. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of revisiting the claim amount and following relevant notifications regarding GST exemptions for healthcare services. The Resolution Professional's argument against the pre-deposit requirement was based on the overriding effect of I&B Code over other laws, citing Section 238 of the Code.

2. The Respondent argued that assessment orders were issued before the moratorium declaration, and the Resolution Professional admitted the total claim without challenging the assessment orders. The Respondent highlighted the lack of adjudicatory powers for the Resolution Professional and referenced legal precedents supporting their stance. The Tribunal considered the CoC's resolution to file an appeal and dismissed the need for further clarification on this issue.

3. The conflict between the pre-deposit requirement under the GST Act and the I&B Code was addressed by the Resolution Professional, citing practical difficulties in filing an appeal during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The Respondent contended that the Resolution Professional failed to prefer an appeal within the specified time frame, as allowed under the statute. The Tribunal examined the arguments presented by both parties and concluded that the Order in question did not require any clarification. The Tribunal dismissed the application, stating it lacked merit.

In summary, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the Resolution Professional's queries regarding appeal authority, the binding effect of the Appellate Authority's judgment during moratorium, and the conflict between pre-deposit requirements under the GST Act and the I&B Code. The Tribunal's decision was based on the legal provisions, CoC's resolution, and relevant legal precedents, ultimately dismissing the application for further clarification.