9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng of the above NCLT Rules, it is quite clear that fees mentioned in Rule 112 read with the definition clause 2(12) does not mention either CIRP costs or the fees to be paid to the IRP or RP. The aforesaid NCLT Rules are confined to fees payable on account of petition or appeal or application filed or references made for documents/orders before the NCLT. This is clearly distinguishable from the expenses which constitute insolvency resolution process costs; costs of the IRP or the Resolution Professional cost which are defined in Section 5(13) read with CIRP Regulation 31, 33 and 34 respectively. Applicability of CBIC Master Circular No. 1081/02/2022-CX dated 19.01.2022 on Recovery and Write-off of Arrears of Revenue in IBC matters - HELD THAT:- It is beyond any pale of doubt that IBC is a complete code in itself and that being the case, in the present matter, in respect of payment of fees of Resolution Professional and CIRP cost, the norms as laid down in the IBC and relevant CIRP Regulations will prevail over the Master Circular and will be squarely applicable on the Appellant - the Appellants cannot find any succour in the Master Circular issued by CBIC in support of their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - being pending tax dues. Since there were no Financial Creditors, the CoC was constituted on 16/12/2021 of all claimants who had claimed as Operational Creditors in accordance with Regulation 16 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulation, 2016 ( CIRP Regulations in short). The CoC comprised of following three members with voting share as assigned against their names, namely, East India Transport Agency (2%); the Asst. Commissioner, CGST, Gandhidham (88%) (the present Appellant) and Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhidham (10%). The 1st and 2nd CoC meetings were held on 23-24 December 2021 and 29-30 December 2021 respectively. The 2nd CoC meeting was held to confirm appointment of IRP as Resolution Professional; to ratify and approve remuneration of IRP; expenses incurred by the IRP etc. The present Appellant, however, did not cast his vote during the second CoC meeting and stated during the said meeting that CBIC Master Circular No. 1081/02/2022-CX dated 19.01.2022 on Recovery and Write-off of Arrears of Revenue do not provide for payment of fees and CIRP costs. Since two of the Operational Credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further submitted that it is not justified on the part of the Adjudicating Authority to compel the Appellants to pay CIRP costs when they voted against this resolution in the CoC meeting. It was further added that the aforementioned CBIC Master Circular of 19.01.2022 also do not provide scope for payment of IRP fees and CIRP costs. 4. Contesting the above submissions, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent stated that the decision of the Adjudicating Authority directing the CoC to pay the CIRP cost in proportion to their voting share was in order as it was in consonance with the provisions of IBC. 5. We have heard the submissions of the Learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record carefully. 6. The issues which have come before our consideration are two-fold, firstly, whether the Appellant by virtue of CBIC Master Circular and NCLT Rules is dispensed from payment of IRP fees and CIRP expenses and whether this Tribunal can allow relief to the Appellant by exempting them from bearing the expenses of CIRP cost and fees of RP; and, secondly, whether the AA had erred in directing the Resolution Professional to proceed with CIRP and also recover CIRP c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application filed or references made for documents/orders before the NCLT. This is clearly distinguishable from the expenses which constitute insolvency resolution process costs; costs of the IRP or the Resolution Professional cost which are defined in Section 5(13) read with CIRP Regulation 31, 33 and 34 respectively. Hence we find that the argument advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that CIRP cost and IRP fees is not recoverable from government departments to be misconceived and untenable as we find no such express provision either in the IBC or the NCLT Rules. 11. This brings us to the applicability of CBIC Master Circular No. 1081/02/2022-CX dated 19.01.2022 on Recovery and Write-off of Arrears of Revenue in IBC matters in the context of payment of CIRP costs and IRP fees. From a cursory glance at the aforementioned circular as at pages 117-133 of the Appeal Paper Book, contents of the Master Circular do not appear to refer to how CIRP costs and IRP fess are to be handled. Be that as it may, we cannot lose sight of the well settled legal proposition that IBC is a complete code in itself and the Hon ble Supreme Court has taken a clear view in Innoventive Indus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
