9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 951 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyApproval of Resolution Plan - seeking the protection to the Joint Resolution Appellants with regard to waiver of requirement of pre-deposit, waiver of interest etc. in reference to statutory dues. - Section 30 of I B Code - HELD THAT - Since the Appellants are successful resolution applicants, the resolution plan was not challenged by them. The judgment passed by the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 313 (Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited through the Director Ors.) 2021 (4) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT as has been relied by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants is not applicable. This Appellate Tribunal cannot appreciate the ratio of the judgment of Ghanashyam Mishra in this case in much as the Judgment of Ghanashyam Mishra was not cited before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority and further in absence of challenge the Resolution Plan which was approved vide order dated 21.05.2019. The Ld. Adjudicating Authority while approving the Resolution Plan vide order dated 21.05.2019 in para 44 has rightly observed that In the resolution plan, relief and concession has been sought in respect of statutory dues for making payment in instalments, no coercive action, waiver of requirement of pre-deposit for filing appeals, waiver of interest, penal interest or damages. These are issues to be decided by the respective government department and appropriate application may be moved before them . There is no illegality committed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority while passing the impugned order - Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Approval and compliance of the Resolution Plan. 2. Demand raised by the Income Tax Department post-approval of the Resolution Plan. 3. Waiver of statutory dues and pre-deposit requirements. 4. Validity of demands for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. 5. Imposition of costs by the Adjudicating Authority. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Approval and Compliance of the Resolution Plan The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against the Corporate Debtor on 31.05.2018. The Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) was appointed and later confirmed as the Resolution Professional (RP). The Joint Resolution Applicants submitted a resolution plan, which was approved by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) and subsequently by the Adjudicating Authority on 21.05.2019. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed that the Resolution Plan complied with Section 30(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). Demand Raised by the Income Tax Department Post-approval of the Resolution Plan The Respondent No. 1 (Income Tax Department) raised demands for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 after the approval of the Resolution Plan. The Monitoring Professional communicated to the Income Tax Department that no demands could be raised post-approval of the Resolution Plan. Despite this, the Income Tax Department issued fresh demand notices. The Appellants argued that these demands were against the scheme of the IBC and the approved Resolution Plan. Waiver of Statutory Dues and Pre-deposit Requirements The Resolution Plan proposed to pay contingent liabilities in instalments and sought waivers for pre-deposit requirements, interest, penal interest, and damages. The Adjudicating Authority denied granting these waivers, stating that such issues should be decided by the respective government departments. This decision was upheld, noting that the proper procedure involves making appropriate applications to the concerned departments. Validity of Demands for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 The Appellants sought a declaration that the demands for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 were invalid, referencing the Supreme Court decision in Essar Steel. However, the Tribunal noted that the judgment in "Ghanashyam Mishra" was not cited before the Adjudicating Authority and did not find it applicable in this case. The demands were raised after the moratorium period had ended, and thus, the Tribunal did not find grounds to invalidate these demands. Imposition of Costs by the Adjudicating Authority The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the application filed by the Monitoring Professional with a cost of ?1,00,000, stating that the application was a waste of judicial time. The Tribunal upheld this decision, agreeing that the application was filed without merit and served to delay proceedings. Conclusion The Tribunal affirmed the Adjudicating Authority's order dated 17.09.2020, dismissing the appeal and upholding the imposition of costs. The Tribunal found no illegality in the Adjudicating Authority's decision and emphasized that statutory dues and related issues should be addressed through appropriate applications to the concerned departments. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
