The Department of State Tax, through the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, filed an appeal against an order dated 13.04.2023, by which the Adjudicating Authority approved the Resolution Plan. The Appellant, an Operational Creditor, claimed that the amount allocated to them in the plan was less than 1% (0.59%) and that they should have been treated as a Secured Creditor. The Respondent refuted this claim, arguing that the Appellant had filed a claim as an Operational Creditor.
The Department of State Tax, acting through the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, initiated an appeal against the approval of a Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority. The Department of State Tax, in its capacity as an Operational Creditor, argued that the allocation of funds to them under the Resolution Plan was less than 1% (specifically, 0.59%) of the total amount. They contended that they should have been classified and treated as a Secured Creditor. The Respondent refuted this claim, asserting that the Appellant had initially filed their claim as an Operational Creditor. The Tribunal considered a previous case involving similar issues, namely "Department of State Tax, Through the Dy. Commissioner of State Tax vs. Zicom Saas Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.",
…Sign in to view the parties.
Order by the Adjudicatin…
Heard learned…
The Department of State Tax, through the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, filed an appeal against an order dated 13.04.2023, by which the Adjudicating Authority approved the Resolution Plan. The Appellant, an Operational Creditor, claimed that the amount allocated to them in the plan was less than 1% (0.59%) and that they should have been treated as a Secured Creditor. The Respondent refuted this claim, arguing that the Appellant had filed a claim as an Operational Creditor.
The Department of State Tax, acting through the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, initiated an appeal against the approval of a Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority. The Department of State Tax, in its capacity as an Operational Creditor, argued that the allocation of funds to them under the Resolution Plan was less than 1% (specifically, 0.59%) of the total amount. They contended that they should have been classified and treated as a Secured Creditor. The Respondent refuted this claim, asserting that the Appellant had initially filed their claim as an Operational Creditor. The Tribunal considered a previous case involving similar issues, namely "Department of State Tax, Through the Dy. Commissioner of State Tax vs. Zicom Saas Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.",
…Order by the Adjudicatin…
Heard learned…