2024 (1) TMI 216 - HC - Income Tax

Recourse to an appropriate remedy as Claim lodged with the Resolution Professional (RP) rejected - HELD THAT - The fact remains that respondent no. 2 is undergoing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process before the National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi Bench NCLT . We were also informed on the previous date i.e., 11.09.2023, respondent no. 2, that the petitioner/revenue did not respond to the public announcement made by the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP). At present, what cannot be denied is the fact that the moratorium u/s 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is operative. Therefore, according to us, no purpose will be served in progressing the writ petition any further. Writ petition is accordingly closed, with liberty to the petitioner/revenue to approach the court, if deemed appropriate, albeit as per the law, for reviving the petition, depending on the outcome of the proceedings pending before the NCLT.

Summary

Issues involved:
The rejection of claim lodged with the Resolution Professional (RP) by the petitioner/revenue and the ongoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for respondent no. 2.

Issue 1: Rejection of claim by RP
The petitioner/revenue's claim with the Resolution Professional (RP) was rejected, leading them to seek an appropriate remedy. The learned senior standing counsel for the petitioner highlighted this rejection, indicating their intention to take further action.

Issue 2: Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
Respondent no. 2 is currently undergoing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), as confirmed by the counsel representing them. The moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is in effect, indicating a temporary halt to certain legal actions against the respondent.

The court acknowledged the ongoing proceedings before the NCLT and the operational moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Considering these factors, the court deemed it unnecessary to continue with the writ petition. The petition was consequently closed, with the petitioner/revenue retaining the option to approach the court again in the future, depending on the outcome of the NCLT proceedings. The parties were instructed to adhere to the digitally signed copy of the order for further actions or compliance.