Case Law Details
Platino Classic Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Central Tax And Central Excise (Kerala High Court)
Introduction: Platino Classic Motors, a BMW car dealer in Kerala, faces a setback as the Kerala High Court rules on the application of Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The court’s decision, outlined in Exhibits P-7 to P-10 orders, challenges the initiation of corporate insolvency resolution and sheds light on the assessment and adjudication proceedings.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Background and Insolvency Proceedings: The Federal Bank of India initiated the insolvency resolution process against Platino Classic Motors under Section 7(4) of the IBC. The application was admitted, appointing an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) to manage the company’s affairs.
2. Rejection of Resolution Plans and Liquidation Order: Despite multiple resolution plans submitted, none were accepted by the Committee of Creditors. Consequently, the Committee sought a direction for the liquidation of Platino Classic Motors. The National Company Law Tribunal issued a liquidation order, appointing the IRP as the Liquidator.
3. Moratorium under Section 33 of the IBC: With the appointment of the Official Liquidator, the moratorium under Section 33 (5) of the IBC commenced, restricting various actions against the corporate debtor.
4. Claims and Assessment Proceedings: Responding to a public notice, the Liquidator received five claims from the 1st respondent. The petitioner challenges Exhibits P-7 to P-10 orders, asserting that the assessment proceedings were concluded during the moratorium without affording them an opportunity.
5. Contesting Perspectives: The petitioner’s counsel argues non-compliance with due process, claiming the petitioner was not heard during the assessment finalization. In contrast, the respondent’s counsel contends that proper notice was issued, and the petitioner had the opportunity to present their case.
6. Section 14 of the IBC: A detailed analysis of Section 14 of the IBC reveals that, according to various judgments, it does not prohibit the finalization of assessment and adjudication proceedings. While the moratorium restricts the recovery of tax dues, there is no bar on concluding ongoing proceedings.
7. Court’s Decision: The court, after considering submissions and impugned orders, dismisses the petitioner’s claims. It asserts that the petitioner was duly noticed, and their representative participated in the proceedings. The orders in Exhibits P-7 to P-10 were finalized following due process.
Conclusion: The Kerala High Court’s ruling clarifies that Section 14 of the IBC does not hinder the conclusion of assessment and adjudication proceedings. Platino Classic Motors’ challenge against Exhibits P-7 to P-10 orders is dismissed, emphasizing the importance of due process in insolvency proceedings. The Official Liquidator is instructed to consider the petitioner’s claims in compliance with the law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning Exhibits P-7, P-8, P-9 and P-10 orders. The petitioner is a dealer of BMW cars in Kerala. The Federal Bank of India filed an application under Section 7(4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “IBC” for short) for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process against the petitioner before the National Company Law Tribunal, Cochin. The said application was admitted by the adjudicating authority vide Exhibit P-1 order dated 08.03.2021. Vide Exhibit P-1 order an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) was appointed to maintain the affairs of the petitioner. The resolution plans submitted by the applicants were rejected by the Committee of Creditors. As no resolution plan was accepted, the Committee of Creditors resolved to seek a direction from the National Company Law Tribunal, Cochin for liquidation of the petitioner Company. An order of liquidation dated 30.09.2022 in terms of Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code came to be passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Cochin appointing the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) as the Liquidator. Once the Official Liquidator was appointed, the moratorium under Section 33 (5) of the IBC commenced. In response to the public notice, the Liquidator of the petitioner has received claim in Schedule II, Form C from the 1st respondent presenting five items of claims before the Official Liquidator.
2. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in Exhibits P-7 to P-10, orders on the basis of which five claims were submitted has been issued after the commencement of the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC on 08.03.2021. His next submission is that the petitioner was not afforded with an opportunity by the competent authority to present the case and contesting the matter.
3. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that notice was issued to the petitioner to which the reply was filed on behalf of the petitioner and authorised representative was also heard. Therefore, the contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not heard when the orders in Exhibits P-7 to P-10 came to be passed is not correct. It is further submitted that there is no bar in respect of conclusion of the ongoing assessment proceedings and adjudication under Section 14 of the IBC. The assessment were completed in accordance with law in compliance of the statutory prescription. It is therefore submitted that the assessment orders in Exhibits P-7 to P-10 cannot be set aside on the ground that the Official Liquidator was not heard while finalising the assessment.
4. I have considered the submissions. Section 14 of the IBC reads as under;
“Section 14: Moratorium
14.(1) Subject to provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), on the insolvency commencement date, the Adjudicating Authority shall by order declare moratorium for prohibiting all of the following, namely:-
(a) the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority;
(b) transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein;
(c) any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002;
(d) the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor.
[Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, it is hereby clarified that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a license, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearances or a similar grant or right given by the Central Government, State Government, local authority, sectoral regulator or any other authority constituted under any other law for the time being in force, shall not be suspended or terminated on the grounds of insolvency, subject to the condition that there is no default in payment of current dues arising for the use or continuation of the license, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearances or a similar grant or right during the moratorium period;]
(2) The supply of essential goods or services to the corporate debtor as may be specified shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during moratorium period.
[(2A) Where the interim resolution professional or resolution professional, as the case may be, considers the supply of goods or services critical to protect and preserve the value of the corporate debtor and manage the operations of such corporate debtor as a going concern, then the supply of such goods or services shall not be terminated, suspended or interrupted during the period of moratorium, except where such corporate debtor has not paid dues arising from such supply during the moratorium period or in such circumstances as may be specified.]
[(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to-
[(a) such transactions, agreements or other arrangements as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator or any other authority;]
(b) a surety in a contract of guarantee to a corporate debtor.]
(4) The order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of such order till the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process:
Provided that where at any time during the corporate insolvency resolution process period, if the Adjudicating Authority approves the resolution plan under sub-section (1) of section 31 or passes an order for liquidation of corporate debtor under section 33, the moratorium shall cease to have effect from the date of such approval or liquidation order, as the case may be.”
5. From perusal of Section 14 of the IBC and several Judgments of the other High Courts as well as the Supreme Court, it is well settled that Section 14 of the IBC does not create a bar for finalisation of the assessment and adjudication proceedings in respect of the taxes. On the resolution once the reference has been admitted, there is moratorium for recovery of the tax dues but, there is no bar for finalisation of the assessment and adjudication proceedings. On perusal of the impugned orders Exhibits P-7 to P10, it is evident that the petitioner was issued notice to which reply was filed and after hearing, these orders in Exhibits P-7 to P-10 has been finalised. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that: since the Official Liquidator was not heard, the order has become bad. It is the petitioner who was issued notice. The representative of the petitioner remained present during the hearing. His reply was also filed in the show cause notice and thereafter the orders in Exhibits P-7 to P-10 has been passed. Thus, I find no substance in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. The Official Liquidator should consider the five claims of the petitioner in accordance with the law.