AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Hybrid Mode)
[Per: Jatindranath Swain, Member (Technical)]
The instant appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging the order dated 31.07.2025 passed in IA/IBC/92(CHE)/2022 in IBA/73/2020 by Ld. NCLT Chennai bench directing the Appellant to refund the sum of Rs. 9,70,79,049/- within the period of 60 days from the date of the order.
The Appellant submits that the Corporate Debtor, namely Sical Logistics Limited, was admitted to CIRP vide order updated 10.03.2021 in IBA/73/2020. He submits that during the CIRP, he submitted the claim form on 24.07.2021 for a sum of Rs. 4,32,58,625/- after adjusting the refunds, and the same had been admitted by the Resolution Professional/Respondent No. 1. In the said claim form, he had specifically taken a case that the amount that has been admitted as claims were after the adjustments of demand and dues payable to the Appellant. However, Resolution Professional/Respondent No. 1 proceeded to file the said application to recover the dues that had been adjusted for transactions, which happened prior to the CIRP and for dues that has arisen prior to the CIRP.
The Ld. Adjudicating Authority has passed the impugned orders on the said application, directing the Appellant to refund the amount to the extent of Rs. 9,70,79,049/-. The Appellant submits that, he has been directed to refund the amount adjusted for the dues, arising prior to CIRP and for the returns that have been filed prior to CIRP. Thus, the Appellant's rights as a Secured Creditor under I & B Code, 2016, to claim their amount after an attachment made has been violated.
He further states that if he refund the said amount, the same would be distributed or utilised by the RP and he is apprehensive as to whether at all he will ever receive the said amounts later when he succeeds in the appeal. He further states that the present appeal raises a substantial question of law as regards the rights of Income Tax Department, specifically under the relevant provisions of Income Tax Act 1961 and I & B Code, 2016, which permits adjustment of tax demand against refund to be made.
The Respondent has also filed his counter to the stay application and has cited a number of citations to defend his case for refund. The Appellant also has filed a number of citations to support his case for setting aside the impugned order. The Appellant has also stated that he is Income Tax Department and he is not going to run away from paying the dues in case the appeal is decided against him and therefore, the balance of convenience lies in his favour because in case, the amount that has been directed to be paid to the RP is paid by him at this juncture, pending the present appeal, he will not be sure whether the money can be retrieved back by him in case the appeal is decided in his favour.
The matter requires scrutiny as it involves examination of substantial aspects of law, which will require detailed pleadings from both sides, as well as careful appreciation of the arguments presented by them. Therefore, it will be only just that, the rights of the Appellant is protected during the pendency of appeal, especially in view of the undertaking given by him that he will pay the entire amount in case he loses the appeal. Therefore, this Tribunal is inclined to grant an interim order of stay of the impugned order till the matter is disposed of.