9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent. Therefore, the amount that the petitioner would be required to pay is 5% of ₹ 7,02,20,725.00. A direction is issued to Opposite Party No.3 to calculate and refund to the Petitioner the excess service tax paid by it by acknowledging that the Petitioner is entitled to receive only 20.5% of the admitted claim amount which works out to ₹ 3,71,87,750/- - Petition allowed. - W.P.(C) No.17196 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 21-9-2021 - The Chief Justice And Justice B. P. Routray For the Petitioner : Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, Sr. Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mishra, ASC, Mr. R.S. Chimanka, Sr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Amit Patnaik, counsel ORDER DR. S. MURALIDHAR, CJ. 1. The Petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f approved Resolution Plan and aforesaid Supreme Court Judgment dated 15.11.2019, as full and final settlement of all claims of the Petitioner against ESIL and resulted in the extinguishment of all such claims. However, the payment could not be credited to the said account for reasons no way attributable to the Opposite Party 5/7 but due to Transaction Failure as Petitioner s account OPERATIONS SUSPENDED . The Opposite Party No.7 is ready and willing to disburse the same, if the account details to which the same can be credited is provided by the Petitioner. 5. In the rejoinder filed by the Petitioner to the above counter affidavit, at para 8 the Petitioner has set out the present account number of the Petitioner. 6. Counsel app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e operational creditors as well as some other creditors of Opposite Party No.5 filed applications before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Ahmedabad under the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) in CP(IB) Nos.39 and 40 of 2017. By the order dated 8th March, 2019 the NCLT, Ahmedabad concluded the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) approving the resolution plan submitted by Arcelor Mittal India Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party No.7) in terms of Section 31(1) of the IBC. The operative portion of the said order of the NCLT reads as under: In the light of the above stated discussions, present I.A. No.431/2018 is conditionally allowed. The resolution plan submitted by the Arcelor Mittal India Pvt. Ltd. being H-1 is approved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the excerpt of the list of Operational Creditors (which has been enclosed as Annexure-4 in the present petition), the name of present Petitioner appears at Sl. No.754. As against the amount of ₹ 21,42,70,161/-, the admitted sum pay able by Opposite Party No.5 was indicated as ₹ 18,14,03,659/-. Pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court the claim of the Petitioner was to be settled at 20.5% of the total claim, i.e. 20.5% of the aforementioned sum of ₹ 18,14,03,659/-. 12. The case of the Petitioner is that it has already paid towards service tax ₹ 1,41,12,429.94 and towards GST ₹ 1,92,66,932/- for the aforementioned period January to December, 2017. It accordingly submits that there has to be a pro-rata ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harged. As we have held above, respondent may be justified in proceeding with the show-cause cum demand notices because that has resulted in crystallization of the total amount of service tax dues i.e., the principal amount payable by the petitioner which is ₹ 7,02,20,725.00. The amount of service tax dues having thus crystallized as above, the resolution plan says that the same would be settled at 5% of the principal dues adjudicated. The word used is adjudicated and not adjusted as sought to be read and applied by the respondent. Therefore, the amount that the petitioner would be required to pay is 5% of ₹ 7,02,20,725.00. In so far the recovered amount i.e. ₹ 6,23,82,214.00 is concerned, the same is part of the total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
