# In the matter of Office of the Asst. State Tax Commissioner
State Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra Vs. Shri Parthiv Parikh and Ors. CA (AT) (Ins) No. 583 of 2020

> NCLAT judgment dated 2021-03-26. Citation: TCN-2021-NCLAT-00299. The appeal was filed by the Office of the Asst. State Tax Commissioner, State Tax Department,…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 26 Mar 2021
- **Citation:** TCN-2021-NCLAT-00299
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/office-of-the-asst-state-tax-commissioner-state-tax-department-government-of-mah-e9d06493

## Summary

### Background

The appeal was filed by the Office of the Asst. State Tax Commissioner, State Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra, against the order dated 19.03.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority/National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmadabad Bench in I.A. No. 593/2019 in Company Petition (IB) No. 172/AHM/2018. The Adjudicating Authority had approved the Resolution Plan submitted by Respondent No. 4. The appellant claimed to be unaware of the CIRP proceedings against the Corporate Debtor, Jaihind Projects Ltd. (Respondent No. 3), until informed by the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax. The appellant filed a claim for Rs.5,62,29,528/- on 20.12.2019, which was rejected by the Resolution Professional due to delay. The appellant then filed an appeal under Section 60(5) of the IBC

…

## Facts

The Corporate Debtor, Jaihind Projects Ltd., defaulted in payment of State Tax, creating a liability of Rs.5,62,29,528/-. An Operational Creditor, SKE Projects Private Limited, filed an application under Section 9 of IBC against the Corporate Debtor. CIRP was initiated against the Corporate Debtor. Premnarayan Ramanand Tripathi was appointed as Interim Resolution Professional, later replaced by Parthiv Parikh. The Appellant, Office of the Asst. State Tax Commissioner, filed a claim on 20.12.2019, which was rejected by the Resolution Professional due to delay. The Resolution Plan was approved by the Adjudicating Authority on 19.03.2020. The Appellant filed an appeal under Section 61 of the IBC, arguing that the claim should have been considered despite the delay. The

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority was correct in approving the Resolution Plan and rejecting the …

**Ratio:** The CIRP is a time-bound process, and claims must be submitted within the stipulated time

…

**Reasoning:** The Appellant submitted its claim more than one year and one month after the invitation

…

**Interpretation:** The IBC emphasizes the importance of adhering to the timelines stipulated for

…

**Application:** In this case, the Appellant's claim was filed significantly after the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** A.I.S. C…; Dr.Alok Sri…
- **Appellants:** Office of the…
- **Respondents:** Jaihind Projects…; Parthiv P…

## Timeline

- **2018-01-01 — Company Pe…**: Company Petition (IB) No.…
- **2018-11-02 — Public N…**: Public notice inviting…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61 — Appeals and Appellate Authority](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-61)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/office-of-the-asst-state-tax-commissioner-state-tax-department-government-of-mah-e9d06493