9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 1071 - HC - Insolvency and BankruptcySeeking release of seized vehicle alongwith goods - seizure for non-payment of the tax and penalty irrespective of the vehicles under the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act - opportunity to rebut the factual aspect that the Petitioner had not raised any claim when the Interim Resolution Professional made an advertisement to raise such claims, were not provided - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Admittedly the Petitioner has not amended the prayer in the writ petitions nor incorporated the facts by way of an amendment. But by fling an additional affidavit, drawing the notice of the Court to the subsequent development in the NCLT i.e. the finalization of the Resolution Plan approved by the NCLT, he has sought for the relief. Since the Petitioner has not incorporated the aforesaid plea in the writ petitions nor he has amended the prayer, allowing such prayer of the Petitioner would amount to take the Opposite Party by surprise that too without giving any opportunity to rebut such factual aspect that the Petitioner had not raised any claim when the Interim Resolution Professional made an advertisement to raise such claims under Section 15 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The same would amount to violation of the principle of natural justice.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Vehicle Checking Report and vehicle seizure. 2. Impact of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on tax and penalty claims. 3. Amendment of writ petitions to incorporate subsequent developments. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Vehicle Checking Report and vehicle seizure: The Petitioner challenged the Vehicle Checking Report and the seizure of vehicles by the Opposite Party due to non-payment of tax and penalty under the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. The Petitioner argued that the vehicles were seized without giving any opportunity of hearing, which led to the filing of writ petitions for quashing the Vehicle Checking Report and releasing the vehicles. 2. Impact of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 on tax and penalty claims: The Petitioner company, which became sick and was referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), faced proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. An Interim Resolution Professional was appointed, and a Resolution Plan was approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata Bench. The Petitioner contended that the claims of the Opposite Party were extinguished as they were not submitted under Regulation 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016. The Petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, which held that once a resolution plan is approved, all claims not part of the resolution plan stand extinguished. 3. Amendment of writ petitions to incorporate subsequent developments: The Opposite Party argued that the Petitioner did not amend the writ petitions to include the subsequent developments related to the NCLT proceedings and the approval of the Resolution Plan. The Court noted that the Petitioner had not amended the prayer in the writ petitions but had filed an additional affidavit to bring the subsequent developments to the Court's notice. The Court held that allowing the relief sought by the Petitioner without giving the Opposite Party an opportunity to rebut the factual aspects would violate the principle of natural justice. Conclusion: The Court disposed of the writ petitions, granting the Petitioner liberty to file appropriate petitions incorporating the subsequent developments within two months. Until then, no coercive steps shall be taken against the Petitioner for the realization of penalty dues. If the Petitioner approaches the Court within the stipulated time, the deposit made with regard to the tax and the penalty shall be subject to the order passed in the said writ petitions. If the Petitioner does not approach the Court within the stipulated time, the Opposite Party may realize the statutory dues as per the law.
|
