Wednesday 30 June 2021

GST Advance Ruling - Sale as a Going Concern in Slump Sale

 

Question; Whether business transfer agreement as a going concern which consists of transferring under construction building project is covered under S. No. 12 of the Notification No. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) and its thus exempt from the applicability of GST?


Ruling; In view of the above discussion we hold that transfer of Business in question shall be treated as a going concern and is exempted from GST as on date in terms of serial no. 2 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended from time to time).


----------------------------------------------------------

Case Law Details

Case Name : In re M/s Rajeev Bansal and Sudershan Mittal (GST AAR Uttarakhand)

Appeal Number : Advance Ruling No. 10/2019-20

Date of Judgement/Order : 09/01/2020

Related Assessment Year :

Courts : AAR Uttarakhand Advance Rulings


In re M/s Rajeev Bansal and Sudershan Mittal (GST AAR Uttarakhand)

Whether business transfer agreement as a going concern which consists of transferring under construction building project is covered under S. No. 12 of the Notification No. 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) and its thus exempt from the applicability of GST?

 

From the record we find that the applicant is carrying on the business of constructing residential/commercial complexes and selling thereof and the applicant firm come into existence particularly for the said project. Further on perusal of the sale deed dated 24.10.2019, we find that the applicant has sold the under-construction building, as a whole, situated at village- Manoharpur, Pargana-Jwalapur, District-Hardwar with its all assets and transfer the rights of the same to the buyer including the approved map from the competent authority. The buyer has purchased the under-construction building/business to carry on the same kind of business as the purchaser themselves engaged in constructing residential/commercial complexes and selling thereof . Further as on date we find that there is no series of immediately consecutive transfers of the said business.

 

7.7 In view of the above we thus observe that the applicant has transfer the business as a going concern to M/s Ronav Infrastructure and it may treated as supply of services and as per serial no. 2 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended from time to time), the same is exempted from levy of GST as on date.


-----------------------------------------------------

 

AUTHORITY FOR  ADVANCE RULING, GOODS & SERVICE TAX, UTTRAKHAND

 

1. This is an application under Sub-Section (1) of Section 97 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 (herein after referred to as Act) and the rules made thereunder filed by M/s Rajeev Bansal & Sudershan Mittal, 789, 1st Floor Awas Vikas Ranipur More, Hardwar, Uttarakhand seeking an advance ruling on whether “Business Transfer Agreement” as a going concern which consists of transferring under-construction project is covered under serial no. 12 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (herein after referred to as “said notification”) and thus exempted from the applicability of GST.

 

2. Advance Ruling under GST means a decision provided by the authority or the appellate authority to an applicant on matters or on questions specified in sub section (2) of section 97 or sub section (1) of section 100 in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant.

 

3. As per the said subsection (2) of Section 97 of the Act advance ruling can be sought by an applicant in respect of :

  • (a) Classification of any goods or services or both

  • (b) Applicability of a notification issued under the provisions of this Act,

  • (c) Determination of time and value of supply of goods or services or both,

  • (d) Admissibility of input tax credit of tax paid or deemed to have been paid

  • (e) Determination of the liability to pay tax on any goods or services or both

  • (f) Whether the applicant is required to be registered

  • (g) Whether any particular thing done by the applicant with respect to any goods or services or both amounts to or results in a supply of goods or services or both within the meaning of that term

 

4. In the present case applicant has sought advance ruling on applicability of exemption Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 on “Business Transfer Agreement” as a going concern which consists of transferring under-construction project. Therefore, in terms of said Section 97(2)(b) of Act, the present application is hereby admitted.

 

5. Accordingly opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the applicant on 19.12.2019. Shri Himanshu Sharma (CA) and Amrit Aswal (CA), on behalf of the applicant appeared for personal hearing on the said date and submitted that the written submissions to be taken on record.

 

6. From the record we find that applicant is registered in Uttarakhand with GSTIN bearing no. 05AARFR4816L2ZO. The submissions of the applicant are summarized as under:

  • (i) That the applicant is a partnership firm engaged in the business of constructing residential/commercial complexes.

  • (ii) That the firm was formed for constructing and selling a residential/commercial building at village- Manoharpur, Jwalapur,

  • (iii) That the applicant got the map approved from the competent authority.

  • (iv) That the covered area was around 1.25 lakhs sq feet. A total carpet area of 85 thousand sq feet was constructed up to the date of transfer.

  • (v) That M Is Ronav Infrastructure (buyer) engaged in the same business, approached the applicant to take over this incomplete project to further carry out the business of constructing and selling the said building.

  • (vi) That the applicant entered into an agreement with M/s Ronav Infrastructure for transfer of the business as a “going concern”. The main asset of the business being the land, the incomplete flats constructed on the land and the approved map. A separate sale deed was executed for transfer off flats as required under the state law for Rs. 21.80 crores on 24.10.2019.

 

7. In the present case we are not deciding any wider question but restricting our conclusion to the facts and circumstances which was filed for our consideration in the application. Now we proceed as under:

 

7.1 Whether “Business Transfer Agreement” as a going concern which consists of transferring under- construction project, is exempted from the levy of GST in terms of serial no. 12 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. We have gone through the said notification and we find that the issue in hand pertains to serial no. 2 of the notification and not to serial no. 12 of the said notification as mentioned by the applicant in their application and accordingly we reproduce the relevant portion of the said Notification as under:


Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017

G.S.R………… (E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby exempts the intra-State supply of services of description as specified in column (3) of the Table below from so much of the central tax leviable thereon under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the said Act, as is in excess of the said tax calculated at the rate as specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) of the said Table, unless specified otherwise, subject to the relevant conditions as specified in the corresponding entry in column (5) of the said Table, namely:-

 

SI. No

Chapter, Section,

Heading, Group or

Service Code (Tariff)

Description of

Services

Rate

(per

cent.)

Condition

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

2

Chapter 99

Services by way of transfer of a going concern, as a whole or an independent part thereof

Nil

Nil

 

7.2 On perusal of serial no. 2 of the said notification we find that the services by way of transfer of a going concern, as a whole or an independent part thereof is to be treated as supply of service and covered under chapter 99 of the Service Code (Tariff) and is exempted from GST.

 

7.3 On perusal of “sale deed dated 24.10.2019” we find that

  • a. The applicant has sold the said premises situated at village-Manoharpur, Pargana Jwalapur, Dist-Hardwar to M/s Ronav Infrastructure for a amount of Rs. 21.80 Crores;

  • b. “Assets” include 105 flats, basement, ground floor, 1 to 6 floors of a residential complex covering super area of 84988 sq foot;

  • c. The building is under-construction;

  • d. The purchaser can use and sell the flats as per his will;

  • e. The purchaser has a right to construct other building/floor in the premises;

  • f. The purchaser cannot demolish the said existing flats;

  • g. The purchaser has a right to replace the name of seller in the records of Nagar Nigam;

  • h. The purchaser has to follow the procedures/provisions of law issued by the competent authority time to time.

 

7.4 We find that the term “business” has been defined in sub clause 17 of Section 2 of the Act and the same is reproduced as under:

  • Section 2(17) of the Act “business” includes— 

  • (a) any trade, commerce, manufacture, profession, vocation, adventure, wager or any other similar activity, whether or not it is for a pecuniary benefit; 

  • (b) any activity or transaction in connection with or incidental or ancillary to sub-clause (a); 

  • (c) any activity or transaction in the nature of sub-clause (a), whether or not there is volume, frequency, continuity or regularity of such transaction; 

  • (d) supply or acquisition of goods including capital goods and services in connection with commencement or closure of business; 

  • (e) provision by a club, association, society, or any such body (for a subscription or any other consideration) of the facilities or benefits to its members; 

  • (f) admission, for a consideration, of persons to any premises; 

  • (g) services supplied by a person as the holder of an office which has been accepted by him in the course or furtherance of his trade, profession or vocation; 

  • (h) services provided by a race club by way of totalisator or a licence to book maker in such club ; and N any activity or transaction undertaken by the Central Government, a State Government or any local authority in which they are engaged as public authorities;

 

7.5 From the above definition of the “business” we find that the acquisition of goods/services for commencement of business is covered under the said definition. We observe that a transfer of a business as a going concern is the sale of a business including assets. In terms of financial transaction ‘going concern’ has the meaning that at the point in time to which the description applies, the business is live or operating and has all parts and features necessary to keep it in operation. Thus ‘Transfer of a going concern’ in a simple way can be describe as transfer of a running business which is capable of being carried on by the purchaser as an independent business. We further find that internationally accepted guidelines (applicable to the case in hand) issued by His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HRMC) to treat transfer of business as a going concern are as under:

a. The assets must be sold as part of a ‘business’ as a ‘going concern’

b. The purchaser intends to use the assets to carry on the same kind of business as the seller

c. Where only part of a business is sold it must be capable of separate operation

e. There must not be a series of immediately consecutive transfers

 

7.6 From the record we find that the applicant is carrying on the business of constructing residential/commercial complexes and selling thereof and the applicant firm come into existence particularly for the said project. Further on perusal of the sale deed dated 24.10.2019, we find that the applicant has sold the under-construction building, as a whole, situated at village- Manoharpur, Pargana-Jwalapur, District-Hardwar with its all assets and transfer the rights of the same to the buyer including the approved map from the competent authority. The buyer has purchased the under-construction building/business to carry on the same kind of business as the purchaser themselves engaged in constructing residential/commercial complexes and selling thereof . Further as on date we find that there is no series of immediately consecutive transfers of the said business.

 

7.7 In view of the above we thus observe that the applicant has transfer the business as a going concern to M/s Ronav Infrastructure and it may treated as supply of services and as per serial no. 2 of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended from time to time), the same is exempted from levy of GST as on date.

 

RULING

In view of the above discussion we hold that transfer of Business in question shall be treated as a going concern and is exempted from GST as on date in terms of serial no. 2 of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 (as amended from time to time).


-------------------------------------


Tuesday 29 June 2021

GST - Advance Ruling for Sale of Assets by Liquidator during Liquidation

WBAAR, Goods & Services Tax (29.06.2020) Advance Ruling for Sale of Assets by Liquidator during Liquidation. 

Question; The applicant wants to know whether any sale done by the liquidator of the assets of the applicant results in a supply of goods and/or services or both within the meaning of “supply” as defined under section 7 of the GST Act. If the answer is affirmative, then what will be the rate of GST. The applicant also wants to know whether the liquidator needs to get registered under the GST Act.


Ruling; The sale of the assets of the applicant by NCLT appointed liquidator is a supply of goods by the liquidator, who is required to take registration under section 24 of the GST Act. If she is already registered as a distinct person of the corporate debtor in terms of Notification No. 11/2020 – Central Tax dated 21/03/2020, she should continue to remain registered till her liability ceases under section 29 (1) (c) of the GST Act.


This Ruling is valid subject to the provisions under Section 103 until and unless declared void under Section 104(1) of the GST Act.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

WEST BENGAL AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

14 Beliaghata Road, Kolkata – 700015

(Constituted under section 96 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Act, 2017)

BENCH

Ms Susmita Bhattacharya, Joint Commissioner, CGST & CX

Mr Parthasarathi Dey, Additional Commissioner, SGST

Preamble

A person within the ambit of Section 100 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 or West Bengal Goods and Services Act, 2017 (hereinafter collectively called „the GST Act‟), if aggrieved by this Ruling, may appeal against it before the West Bengal Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, constituted under Section 99 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Act, 2017, within a period of thirty days from the date of communication of this Ruling, or within such further time as mentioned in the proviso to Section 100 (2) of the GST Act.


Every such Appeal shall be filed in accordance with Section 100 (3) of the GST Act and the Rules prescribed thereunder, and the Regulations prescribed by the West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling Regulations, 2018.


Name of the applicant

M/s Mansi Oils and Grains Pvt Ltd

Address

304,Block H, Vikram Vihar, 493/B/18 G T Road, Shibpur, Howrah - 711102

GSTIN

Unregistered

Case Number

02 of 2020

ARN

Not Applicable

Date of application

11/02/2020

Order number and date

02/WBAAR/2020-21   

dated 29/06/2020

Applicant’s representative heard

Rachna Jhunjhunwala, 

NCLT appointed Liquidator


This order is passed in terms of Notification No. 35/2020 – Central Tax dated 03/04/2020, extending up to 30/06/2020 the time limit for completion or compliance of any action by any authority or by any person under the GST Act where the due date for such completion or compliance otherwise falls during the period from 20/03/2020 to 29/06/2020.


1. Admissibility of the Application

1.1 The National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter NCLT), Kolkata Bench, passed an order on 19/07/2019, declaring the applicant a corporate debtor under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter IBC) and appointed a liquidator. The applicant wants to know whether any sale done by the liquidator of the assets of the applicant results in a supply of goods and/or services or both within the meaning of “supply” as defined under section 7 of the GST Act. If the answer is affirmative, then what will be the rate of GST. The applicant also wants to know whether the liquidator needs to get registered under the GST Act.


1.2 The questions are admissible under section 97(2) (f)&(g) of the GST Act. The applicant states that the questions raised in the application have neither been decided nor are pending before any authority under any provision of the GST Act. The application is, therefore, admitted.


1.3 The applicant submits that its business has been closed for ten years. It had been registered under the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 and provided provisional registration under the GST Act for migration. It did not file REG-26 and thus did not migrate to the GST Act. The applicant being unregistered, neither the central nor the state administration has ascertained administrative jurisdiction on the applicant. Requirement under section 98(1) of the GST Act is, therefore, dispensed with.


2. Submissions of the Applicant

2.1The applicant submits that NCLT has appointed Smt. Rachna Jhunjhunwala as liquidator, having IP Registration No IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00389/2017-18/10707. After her appointment as liquidator all powers of directors in decision making are vested in Ms. Jhunjhunwala under section 34 (2) of IBC.


2.2 The plant and machinery, office equipment and furniture of the applicant were auctioned as per regulation laid down under section 32 (c) of the IBC at the price Rs. 2.82 cr.


3. Observations and findings of the Bench

3.1 Sl No 4 (a) of Schedule II of the GST Act says, where goods forming part of the assets of a business are transferred or disposed of by or under the directions of the person carrying on the business so as no longer to form part of those assets, whether or not for a consideration, such transfer or disposal is a supply of goods by the person.


3.2 The liquidator is appointed under section 34 (1) of IBC after NCLT initiates liquidation in terms of section 33 of IBC. As the applicant – the corporate debtor – is not a going concern, the liquidator is required to sell its assets under clauses (a) to (d) of Regulation 32 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (liquidation process) Regulations. The sale of the applicant‟s assets like the plant and machinery, office equipment & furniture is, therefore, a supply of goods by the liquidator. She is required to take registration under section 24 of the GST Act.


3.3 NCLT appoints the „resolution professional‟ (hereinafter RP), as defined under section 3 (27) of IBC, as the liquidator subject to her consent. If she is already registered as a distinct person of the corporate debtor in terms of Notification No. 11/2020 – Central Tax dated 21/03/2020, she should continue to remain registered till her liability ceases under section 29 (1) (c) of the GST Act. It may be noted that the RP/liquidator acts as the authorized person of the corporate debtor. Once an insolvency professional takes registration as the authorized person of the corporate debtor, it remains in effect with suitable amendment in the certificate of registration if the status or person of the authorized person gets changed (refer to Circular No.138/08/2020 – GST dated 06/05/2020).


3.4 According to the applicant, the goods sold are plant and machineries, office equipment and furniture. They are broad categories classifiable under different HSN and taxable under appropriate Sl Nos of the Schedules under Notification No. 1/2017 – CT (Rate) dated 28/06/2017.


Based on the above discussion, we rule as under,


RULING

The sale of the assets of the applicant by NCLT appointed liquidator is a supply of goods by the liquidator, who is required to take registration under section 24 of the GST Act. If she is already registered as a distinct person of the corporate debtor in terms of Notification No. 11/2020 – Central Tax dated 21/03/2020, she should continue to remain registered till her liability ceases under section 29 (1) (c) of the GST Act.


This Ruling is valid subject to the provisions under Section 103 until and unless declared void under Section 104(1) of the GST Act.


(SUSMITA BHATTACHARYA)                             (PARTHASARATHI DEY)

Member                                                                Member

West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling West Bengal Authority for Advance Ruling


-----------------------------------------------------------


Harish Polymer Product Vs. George Samuel & Anr. - Delay in filing of Claim in CIRP.

NCLAT (18.06.2021) in Harish Polymer Product Vs. George Samuel & Anr. [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 420 of 2021] held that;

  • # 10. . . . .  if at belated stage when the Resolution Applicants are already before the Committee of Creditors with their Resolution Plan(s) if new claims keep popping up and are entertained, the CIRP would be jeopardized and Resolution Process may become more difficult. Keeping in view the object of the ‘I&B Code’ which is Resolution of the Corporate Debtor in time bound manner to maximize value, if such requests of applicants like Appellant are accepted the purpose of ‘I&B Code’ would be defeated.

 

Excerpts of the order; 

18.06.2021: Heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and the Learned Counsel for the Resolution Professional. The Respondent No.2 in this Appeal is stated to be the ‘Successful Resolution Applicant’.


# 2. This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant claiming that the Appellant is ‘Operational Creditor’ who had to recover Rs.33,23,718/- from the Corporate Debtor- ‘Jason Dekor Private Limited’. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against the Corporate Debtor on 19th December, 2019. The Appellant has mentioned that the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP)/ Resolution Professional (RP) issued Public Notice and as per the Public Notice, the claims were invited from the public and the last date to submit claims was 7th January, 2020. The Appellant claims that the Corporate Debtor is situated at Ahmedabad while the Appellant operates at Meerut in U.P and did not know about the CIRP initiated against the Corporate Debtor. When the Appellant decided to initiate action against the Corporate Debtor for non-payment of the dues and contacted Counsel, the Appellant got knowledge that there is already CIRP against the Corporate Debtor. The Learned Counsel states that coming to know this, the Appellant filed claim in Form-B with the Resolution Professional sending the same by e-mail on 15th September, 2020. It is stated that the Resolution Professional rejected the claim filed on 13th October, 2020 on the ground of delay. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that due to COVID-19 situation, there was delay and the Appellant could not file the claim in time and delay was required to be condoned. The Appellant claims that in such situation the Appellant filed I.A No. 763/2020 in CP (IB) No. 257/7/NCLT/AHM/2019. The Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad) after hearing the parties has rejected the application.


# 4. Counsel for the Resolution Professional submits that the claim filed was delayed. It is also stated that the CIRP is now at the stage where the Resolution Plan has already been approved by the Committee of Creditors and the same has been filed before the Adjudicating Authority for approval.


# 6. As per Regulation 12(2), the ninetieth day would be 17th March, 2020 as the CIRP started on 19th December, 2019. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 8th March, 2021 in SMW (C) No. 3 of 2020, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had, for the purpose of computing the period of limitation for any suit, application or proceeding, excluded the period from 15th March, 2020 till 14th March, 2021. On this basis, the Learned Counsel states that the claim of the Appellant should have been accepted. 


# 7. The Appellant has also taken stand that because of the lockdown the Appellant was unable to file the claim in time. The IBBI inserted Regulation 40C in the CIRP Regulations, which reads as under:-

  • “40C. Special provision relating to time-line. Notwithstanding the time-lines contained in these regulations, but subject to the provisions in the Code, the period of lockdown imposed by the Central Government in the wake of Covid-19 outbreak shall not be counted for the purposes of the time-line for any activity that could not be completed due to such lockdown, in relation to a corporate insolvency resolution process.”


# 8. The Nationwide lockdown was imposed on 25th March, 2020. When the period of 90 days expired on 17th March, 2020, if Regulation 12(2) read with Regulation 40C is kept in view, the Appellant cannot take advantage by claiming that because of the COVID-19 situation, the Appellant could not file the claim with the Resolution Professional. Submitting of the claim cannot be equated with filing of the application so as to rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred above. It is admitted position that already Resolution Plan has been approved and perusal of the record shows that after much efforts the Resolution Professional could take the CIRP to the stage of approval of Resolution Plan.


# 9. The Adjudicating Authority observed in the impugned order, as under:-

  • XXXX

  • 7. It is pertinent to mention herein that the Resolution Plan has already been received by the CoC as apprised by the RP and it is at the final stage of approval of the CoC (as per RP). At this belated stage, if such types of applications are allowed, the Resolution Plans already received by the CoC from the prospective Resolution Applicants, may get failed, as those are filed on the basis of Information Memorandum (IM). The prospective Resolution Applicants submitted their Resolution Plan on the basis of their financial capacity and availability of funds. There is every likelihood that, if the claims of the different creditors are being accepted in a phase manner and / or on such belated stage, that too after the stipulated time, so provided for submitting claims, in that event, the Resolution Plans can never get materialized and there would be no resolution of Corporate Debtor which is main object of the IB Code, more so, when CIRP is to be completed in a time bound manner. If such claim is accepted, then the Resolution Applicants have to make corrections in their plans, that apart, RP has to make corrections in the IM and its report, correction in the stakeholders list, etc., for which RP has to take permission from this Adjudicating Authority, which may further delay the CIRP. Moreover, CIRP cannot be allowed / extended beyond upper limit of 330 days, in that event the corporate debtor would be compelled to go for liquidation. Further, if the resolution Applicants have infused money or have taken financial assistance from other sources, in that event, they will have to approach for enhancement of the loan/ infusion of money, which practically takes a longer time and by the time they would complete all these processes, the period of CIRP will be over, not to speak about further amendment of the Resolution Plan and re-voting thereon by the CoC with requisite percentage. That apart, the asset of the corporate debtor may get deteriorated, which will affect the maximization of the value of the asset of the corporate debtor.

  • XXXX

  • 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arcelor Mittal India Private Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors, unequivocally held that “the entire time period within which the CIRP ought to be completed is strictly mandatory in nature and cannot be extended. It relied on the primary objective of the Code, which is to ensure a timely resolution process for a CD and principles of statutory interpretation to hold that the literal language of section 12 mandates strict adherence to the time frame it lays down. To enable this adherence to the outer time limit provided in the Code, the court also held that the model timeline provided in Regulation 40A of the CIRP Regulations should be followed “as closely as possible”.

  • 12. Moreover, the RP acted in due compliance of the provisions of Clause (c) of the Sub Section (2) of the Section 15 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Clause (c) of the Sub Regulation (2) of the Regulation 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate persons) Regulations, 2016 read with Sub Regulation (2) of the Regulation 12 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate persons) regulations, 2016 and also after taking into account the provisions of Regulation 40C of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.

  • 13. In the above backdrop, we found that there is no merit in the instant application, hence, the same is dismissed.”


# 10. We find that the reasons recorded by the Adjudicating Authority have substance and if at belated stage when the Resolution Applicants are already before the Committee of Creditors with their Resolution Plan(s) if new claims keep popping up and are entertained, the CIRP would be jeopardized and Resolution Process may become more difficult. Keeping in view the object of the ‘I&B Code’ which is Resolution of the Corporate Debtor in time bound manner to maximize value, if such requests of applicants like Appellant are accepted the purpose of ‘I&B Code’ would be defeated.


----------------------------------------------


Disclaimer:

The sole purpose of this post is to create awareness on the "IBC - Case Law" and to provide synopsis of the concerned case law, must not be used as a guide for taking or recommending any action or decision. A reader must refer to the full citation of the order & do one's own research and seek professional advice if he intends to take any action or decision in the matters covered in this post.

Gokul Anilkumar Aggarwal Vs. Shailesh Bhalchandra Desai (IRP) and Anr. - Therefore, the Claim under CIRP, cannot be rejected on the grounds that it is time barred.

  NCLT Mumbai-V (2024.04.24) in Gokul Anilkumar Aggarwal Vs. Shailesh Bhalchandra Desai (IRP) and Anr. [ (2024) ibclaw.in 468 NCLT, I.A. 327...