CIT (TDS-1) Vs Sundaresh Bhat (NCLAT Delhi)
Conclusion: Resolution Professional ( RP ) could not accept any claim after the lapse of extended period of 90 days of the insolvency commencement date as tax claims did not create any charge or security interest in favour of the Income Tax Department therefore they could not be considered as secured creditor.
Held: In the instant case, a petition under section 7 of the IBC was filed by IDBI Bank Ltd , financial creditor against JBF Petrochemical Ltd., Corporate Debtor. During the moratorium, tax assessment proceedings were initiated by CIT (appellant) against the corporate debtor. An order for the assessment year 2018-19 was passed on March 31, 2022. Appellant filed claims with Resolution Professional (RP) after the expiry of 90 days within which the claim had to be filed. The claims for Assessment Year 2018-19 and CPC-processed demands for AYs 2019-20 to 2021-22 were filed got rejected by the RP. An appeal was filed by appellant against the rejection of claims and approval of the resolution plan. Appellant submitted that the RP rejected its claims without proper consideration. It was argued that it was not informed of the rejection of its claims by the RP and was not provided adequate opportunity to present its claims and against the rejection of its claims. It amounted to the violation of principle of natural justice and contravened section 30(2) of the IBC. Respondent submitted that the process of CIRP was conducted in accordance with CIRP regulations. It was further argued that the appellant was duly informed of the initiation of the insolvency proceedings. It was further submitted that a public announcement was made for this purpose. It was further contended that the RP was under no obligation to inform every person including the appellant personally about the last date for submitting the claims. It was held that the list of creditors were regularly updated and posted on the website of the corporate debtor and on IBBI portal which should be deemed to be a constructive notice. It was observed that no new claim could be admitted after the approval of a resolution plan by Committee of Creditors (CoC) and adjudicating authority. Tribunal held that when the plan had already been approved by both the CoC and the Adjudicating Authority, it could not be reopened now on the basis of claims being belatedly agitated by appellant who for no justifiable reasons had clearly dropped the guard of being vigilant in pursuing his claims within the time-lines laid down by IBC. Thus, creation of a charge by operation of law must be apparent from the express words of the statute. The provisions of Income Tax Act did not create any charge or security interest in favour of appellant or provided any foundational basis for the Income Tax Department to be a secured Creditor. NCLAT upheld the act of the RP in rejecting the claims of the appellant as they were filed after the deadline. It was held that tax claims did not create any charge or security interest in favour of the Income Tax Department therefore they could not be considered as secured creditor.
