Gauhati HC: Can’t Shift Burden of Proof on Accused if Multiple Witnesses of Crime Present  ||  SC: Contempt Notice Issued Against Patanjali For Continued Publishing of Misleading Advertisements  ||  SC: Registry Can’t Decide Whether or Not Review Petiton Merits Relook Through Curative Petiton  ||  Bom. HC: Imprisonment Exceeding Twelve Months Can’t Be Given For Default in Payment of Maintenance  ||  Cal. HC: Cannot Differentiate Between Contractual and Permanent Employees For Maternity Leave  ||  Supreme Court: Entering Into Sale Agreement With Minor is Void and Unenforceable  ||  SC: Information Disclosing Cognizable Offence to Be Recorded as FIR & Not in General Diary  ||  Delhi High Court: Deployment of CISF Personnel Shall be Based on Operational Requirements  ||  All. HC: Returning Unpaid Check With Endorsement of Account Closed Amounts to Dishnonor of Cheque  ||  Karnataka HC: Courts Should Ensure That Legal Procedures Are Not Abused in Order to Reduce Burden    

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Ravinder Kumar Goel - (NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) (16 Oct 2023)

After invocation of Section 33 (5) of the IBC, the authority does not have the power to initiate recovery of dues by means of sale/ confiscation



Present appeal is directed against the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, by which two applications, filed under Section 60 (5) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) by the Liquidator of Supreme Tex Mart Limited (Company under liquidation) against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Punjab have been allowed.

The issue involved in this case is as to whether after the initiation of the liquidation proceedings, the Appellant being Department of Income Tax, by virtue of an assessment having been made during the pendency of the liquidation proceedings, can ask the company under liquidation for the Income Tax dues and also issue notice for recovery etc.

Section 33(5) of the IBC specifically bars any kind of legal proceedings by or against the Corporate Debtor after the liquidation order is passed but the Supreme Court in the case of Sudaresh Bhatt has made it clear that even after the imposition of the moratorium or invocation of Section 33 (5) of the IBC, as the case may be, the only jurisdiction with the authority is to assess and determine the quantum but it does not have the power to initiate recovery of dues by means of sale/ confiscation as provided.

In view of the aforesaid decision to which no contrary judgment has been cited, present Tribunal is of the considered opinion that, the learned Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the Department had the jurisdiction even to assess the company in liquidation after the liquidation order has been passed. However, there is no error on the part of the Learned Tribunal where it has held that the Department cannot on the basis of the subsequent order make recovery. Appeal disposed off.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved