Assistant Commissioner Of GST & Central Excise vs Liquidator Of M/s. Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd.

Heard the Learned Counsel for the ‘Petitioner’/‘Appellant’ in IA No.920/2023 in Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.300 of 2023 (Condone Delay Application). According to the ‘Petitioner’/‘Appellant’/‘Department’, the instant ‘Appeal’, came to be filed with a delay of 14 days (after the expiry of 30 days) and that the ‘Petitioner’/‘Appellant’ was to identify and coordinate with the Standing Counsel for the ‘Petitioner’/‘Appellant’/‘Department’ in Chennai, in order to prefer the instant ‘Appeal’.

Added further, the main reason assigned on behalf of the ‘Petitioner’/‘Appellant’, in regard to the delay in preferring the ‘Appeal’, is that the delay of 14 days, in preferring the ‘Appeal’ ,was caused, due to the ‘Petitioner’/‘Appellant’ is an Officer in the Department of Revenue and was preoccupied in regard to the multiple ongoing Assessments, Enquiry and Adjudications, etc. In short, the ‘Petitioner’/‘Appellant’ has come out with an administrative reason for the delay of 14 days in preferring the instant ‘Appeal’.

Admittedly, the ‘Impugned Order’ dated 30.03.2023 in IA (IBC) 461/CHE/2021 in IBA/243/2019 was passed on 30.03.2023. In this connection, this ‘Tribunal’, keeping in mind of the ingredients of Section 61(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which confers ‘discretion’ on the part of the ‘Appellate Tribunal’, to exercise the same, provided sufficient cause is shown for not preferring the ‘Appeal’ as per section 61(1) of the Code, within 30 days from the date of pronouncement of the ‘Impugned Order’ and in the instant case, the delay, in question is 14 days (30 + 14 = 44 days) which is well within the time limit, of Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

On being subjectively satisfied as to the reasons ascribed on behalf of the ‘Petitioner’/‘Appellant’ in I.A. No.920/2023, this ‘Tribunal’, without harping on any technicalities and also not resorting to any ‘pedantic approach’, adopts a lenient and liberal view in extending its ‘Judicial Arm of Generosity’, and condones the delay of 14 days, to secure the ends of justice, but without costs.

According to the Learned Counsel for the ‘Appellant’, the ‘Adjudicating Authority’/‘Tribunal’ have committed an error while passing the ‘Impugned Order’ in IA (IBC) 461/CHE/2022 in IBA/243/2019 dated 30.03.2023 and that the ‘Adjudicating Authority’, had rejected the I.A. (IBC) 461/CHE/2022 in IBA/243/2019 only on the basis, that the physical copy was filed only on 12.11.2022 (in respect of the present application) although, the said application was e-filed on 09.12.2022.

Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the ‘Appellant’, points out that the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ had taken into account e-filing of the application, which was made on 09.12.2022, then there would have been a possibility for the ‘Adjudicating Authority’/‘Tribunal’, to come to the different conclusion. Unfortunately, the ‘Adjudicating Authority’, had assigned only the reason that the present application was filed physically only on 12.07.2022 and this, has resulted in a ‘miscarriage of justice’.

Per contra, Mr. P. Dhanaraj, Learned Counsel appearing for the ‘Respondent’/‘Liquidator’ of M/s. Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. points out that the ‘Liquidation’, in the matter was ordered on 08.04.2021 and admittedly, the last date for preferring the Claim, before the ‘Respondent’/‘Liquidator’ was on 08.05.2021. Undisputedly, the ‘Claim’ was filed before the ‘Respondent’/‘Liquidator’ on 20.01.2022. Besides this, it is brought to the notice of this ‘Tribunal’, on behalf of the ‘Respondent’/‘Liquidator’ that the Scheme under Section 230 of the Companies Act was already under consideration before the ‘Respondent’/‘Liquidator’.

It comes to be known that the ‘Adjudicating Authority’/‘Tribunal’, through its order dated 24.01.2022, had given the sale of ‘Approval’ in respect of the ‘First Motion Application’ and ultimately, the Final Scheme was approved by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’/‘Tribunal’ in CP(CAA)/30/(CHE)/2022 through an order dated 02.05.2022. Besides this, consequent to the ‘approval of the Scheme’, it is brought to the fore, that the ‘Company’, was handed over to the ‘Scheme Proponent’. Also that, the said successful ‘Scheme Proponent’ is continuing with the ‘Operations’ of the Company. Looking at from any angle, the instant ‘Appeal’ preferred on behalf of the ‘Petitioner’/‘Appellant’/‘Department’ is devoid of merits. Consequently, the ‘Appeal’, fails.

In fine, the instant ‘Appeal’ Comp. App. (AT) (CH) (Ins) No.300/2023 is ‘Dismissed’, for the reasons assigned by this ‘Tribunal’, in this ‘Appeal’. No costs. Connected I.A.No.919/2023 (for ‘dispensing with’ of certified copy of the ‘Impugned Order’) is closed.