The Appellant contended that its claim should be treated as a secured debt u/s 30 of the Insolvency and...

The Appellant contended that its claim should be treated as a secured debt u/s 30 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), rather than as an unsecured debt. However, the NCLAT rejected this argument, distinguishing the present case from the Supreme Court's decision in Rainbow Papers, which dealt with Section 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax (GVAT) Act. The NCLAT held that Section 37 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax (MVAT) Act and Section 33 of the MPVAT Act are not pari materia (on the same footing) with Section 48 of the GVAT Act. The NCLAT relied on its previous decision in Zicom Saas, where it was held that these provisions are not comparable to Section 48 of the GVAT Act. Consequently, the Appellant cannot claim the benefit of th..... .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X