AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These twin appeals are preferred by the Sales Tax Department, which, in essence has challenged the Resolution Plan approved by the Adjudicating Authority.
The minimum facts which are relevant for the current purpose may be stated:
On 12.12.2019, the Committee of Creditors (CoC) approved the Resolution Plan.
About two years thereafter, on 03.11.2021 to be precise, the appellant herein had preferred a claim for Rs. 1,33,51,382, based on an assessment made during the moratorium period. On 24.11.2021, the Resolution Professional (RP) has rejected the said claim on the ground of delay. The appellant did not challenge it before the Adjudicating Authoirty.
Be that as it may, on CoC approving the Resolution Plan, RP has taken out MA 4129 of 2018 before the Adjudicating Authority for the latter’s approval to the plan. The SRA filed IANo. 904 of 2021 for concessions and waivers in its order the Adjudicating Authority had merely apply the clean slate theory.By a common Order, dated, 11.08.2023, the Adjudicating Authority granted approval to the plan. So far as I.A.904 of 2021 is concerned, the Adjudicating Authority merely reiterated the clean slate theory.
Aggrieved by the twin orders passed in MA 4129 of 2019 and IA No. 904 of 2021, the Appellant approached this Tribunal.
Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even though the Appellant has not chosen to challenge RP’s proceedings dated 24.11.2021 rejecting the appellant’s claim as belated before the Adjudicating Authority, yet on the strength of the ratio in Sales Tax Officer Vs Rainbow Papers Limited, [2022 SCC Online SC 1162], the appellant’s claim, being Government dues cannot be rejected.
We are not impressed with the submissions of the learned counsel. When appellant’s claim was rejected by the RP, it had all the opportunity to challenge the same before the Adjudicating Authority, something which the appellant in Rainbow Papers case did which the appellant herein omitted to do. The law aids the one who is vigilant. In Rainbow Papers case even as the Hon’ble Supreme Court had expressed its displeasure over the resolution plans that ignores dues to the Government, it is till not an authority for reopening a resolution plan for the benefit of one who is proved to have been lackadaisical in approaching the judicial fora. And if this tribunal were to countenance such lackadaisical attitude of the governmental department in not even caring to challenge a proceeding of the RP when it had the opportunity to challenge, then no resolution plan will be safe nor any insolvency resolution process could ever conclude.
Today the plan is approved, and we cannot reopen the plan to accommodate the prayer of the appellant. Lethargy before the judicial forum does not always accommodate leniency especially when it halts and holds the interest of stakeholders to the resolution process to ransom.
Having stated thus, if the resolution plan has reserved any amount towards contingent claims, and the same amount is still available, the SRA may consider the claim of the Appellant.
Subject to what we have stated in para 6 these appeals are dismissed. No cost.