Commercial Tax Department Vs Teena Saraswat Pandey & Anr. (NCLAT Delhi)
Conclusion: Section 37 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 ( MVAT Act ) and Section 33 of the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (“MPVAT Act”) are not pari materia with Section 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ( GVAT Act ). Therefore, the claim of the Commercial Tax Department could not be considered a ‘secured debt’ merely because of its statutory status as a first charge on property.
Held: In the instant case, an application under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ( IBC ) was admitted against M/s R Pvt. Ltd. ( Corporate Debtor ) by the Adjudicating Authority. Ms. Teena Saraswat ( Respondent No. 1 ) was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional. Committee of Creditors approved Agarwal Real City Pvt. Ltd.’s Resolution Plan with 90.41% of the votes. The Prospective Resolution Applicant proposed to pay Rs. 22,61,33,000 against the total admitted claim with NIL payments to operational creditors. Thereafter, the Resolution Professional filed an application under Section 30(6) read with Section 31 of IBC for the approval of the Resolution Plan. The same was allowed on 25.08.2022. The Commercial Tax Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh ( Appellant ) filed the appeal challenging the impugned order on the grievance that its claim of Rs. 12,61,57,345 was treated as an unsecured debt and not a secured debt under Section 30 of the IBC. It was held that provisions of Section 37 of the MVAT Act and Section 33 of the MPVAT Act appeared to be pari materia about which a decision had been taken by this court in the case of Zicom Saas that both the provisions were not pari materia with Section 48 of the GVAT Act, therefore, no benefit could be given to the Appellant on the basis of the decision of the Rainbow Papers. Thus, appellant was not treated as a ‘secured creditor and the appeal was dismissed.
