AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
13.07.2022: This appeal is directed against the Order 04th May, 2020 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (Special Bench) in MA 3505/ 2019 in CP (IB) No. 3457/MB/2018 by which an Application filed by the Appellant herein i.e. Commercial Tax Department, Government of Rajasthan, seeking the entertainment of their claim of the tax liability to the tune of Rs. 11.95 Crores approximately, set up against the Corporate Debtor i.e. Trimax IT Infrastructure & Services Ltd., pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13 to 2016-17.
The admitted facts are that the Tribunal had appointed the Resolution Professional on 24th April, 2019 and according to the Appellant the Resolution Professional sent a letter dated 23rd May, 2019 about the resolution proceedings and therefore the Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted a claim (Form-B) for the aforesaid outstanding dues. It is further the case of the Appellant that since the RP has neither accepted nor denied the claim, therefore, it had to prefer a Miscellaneous Application bearing MA 3505/ 2019 before the Tribunal for a direction to accept its claim by the RP but the Application was dismissed by the Impugned Order and hence the present appeal.
The issue involved in this Appeal as to whether the Appellant/ Applicant can claim the dues which had arisen prior to the initiation of the CIRP or not has already been addressed and decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ghanshayam Mishra & Sons Private Limited vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited (2021) 9 SCC 657” in which it has been held as under:-
“95.(i) That once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under subsection (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholder. On the date of approval of resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all such claims, which are not a part of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan.”
Faced with the law laid down by the Supreme Court, Learned Counsel for the Appellant has fairly submitted that there is no quarrel with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Ghanshayam Mishra & Sons Private Limited vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited” (Supra) but the dues are of the preriod prior to the year 2016 when the IBC 2016 came into being and therefore the tax dues which were governed by the State Law cannot be denied by taking recourse to the provisions of the Code.
On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Respondent has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in “CIT vs. Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. (2018) 18 SCC 786 that Section 238” and submitted that the Code contains a non-obstante clause which provides that the provision of the Code shall have effect notwithstanding, anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time been in force which has been settled in the case of “CIT vs. Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd” (Supra).
No other point has been raised by the Appellant.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions, we find that there is no illegality in the Impugned Order for the purpose of any kind of interference especially in the wake of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of “Ghanshayam Mishra & Sons Private Limited vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited”.
Thus, finding no merit in this case the same is hereby dismissed.