Claim filed by Excise Commissioner 1 year after RP approval couldn’t be accepted u/r 12 of CIRP regulations: NCLT

Case Details: Punjab National Bank v. Dinesh Polytubes (P.) Ltd. - [2023] 147 taxmann.com 553 (NCLT-Chd.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Harnam Singh Thakur, Judicial Member & Subrata Kumar Dash, Technical Member
  • Piyush Bansal, Adv. for the Applicant.
  • G.S. Sarin, PCS & Deepankur Sharma, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the CIRP was initiated against the corporate debtor and consequently, the Resolution Professional (RP) was appointed. Later, the RP submitted an application u/s 31 of IBC for the approval of a resolution plan, which was approved.

Subsequently, the Applicant, Excise and Taxation Commissioner filed an instant application seeking the acceptance of a claim or revised claim regarding statutory dues of the department by the RP and for modifying or setting aside of the approved resolution plan by the Committee of Creditors.

The NCLT observed that Regulation 12 of CIRP Regulations, 2016 specifies a time limit of 90 days from the Insolvency commencement date for the submission of claims and, therefore, accepting a claim well after the approval of the resolution plan would disrupt the entire post-CIRP process.

Further, it was also observed that it would negate all efforts made towards the insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor.

Regulation 12 of CIRP Regulations, 2016 read as follows:

12. Submission of proof of claims.

(1) Subject to sub-regulation (2), a creditor shall submit 45[claim with proof] on or before the last date mentioned in the public announcement.

(2) A creditor, who fails to submit claim with proof within the time stipulated in the public announcement, may submit the claim with proof to the interim resolution professional or the resolution professional, as the case may be, on or before the ninetieth day of the insolvency commencement date.]

NCLT Held

The NCLT held that since the claim in the instant case was submitted after a period of more than one year after the approval of the resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, the same could not have been accepted.

List of Cases Reviewed

• • State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Ltd. [2022] 142 taxmann.com 157/174 SCL 250 (SC) (para 8) distinguished.

List of Cases Referred to

• • State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Ltd. [2022] 142 taxmann.com 157/174 SCL 250 (SC) (para 8)
  • T.S. Murali v. Liquidator of Helpline Hospitality (P.) Ltd. [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 234 of 2021 dated 18-10-2022] (para 9).