IBC

Competition Law and the IBC: An Alternate Perspective on the Supreme Court’s Balancing Act

by

Introduction

Recently, the Supreme Court (‘Court’) in Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd v Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors resolved an interpretive uncertainty involving the interface of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) with the Competition Act, 2002. The narrow question before the Court was whether the approval of a resolution plan by the Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’) must mandatorily precede the approval of the Committee of Creditors (‘CoC’) under the proviso to Section 31(4), IBC. The proviso states that:

 Provided that where the resolution plan contains a provision for combination as referred to in section 5 of the Competition Act, 2002 (12 of 2003), the resolution applicant shall obtain the approval of the Competition Commission of India under that Act prior to the approval of such resolution plan by the committee of creditors.

The majority opinion, relying on a plain and literal interpretation, held that prior approval by the CCI was mandatory and not directory. The interpretive disagreement did not arise due to any ambiguity in the provision per se, but due to anxiety about delays in the resolution process. It was argued that mandating the prior approval of the CCI for all resolution applicants, instead of only the successful resolution applicant, would delay the completion of the resolution process under the IBC, and time is of the essence in a resolution process to protect and maximise the value of the corporate debtor’s assets. The issue – before, and even after the Court’s judgment – has been largely looked at from the prism of efficacy of the resolution process under the IBC and the need to respect timelines. Even the resolution professional in the impugned case seems to have interpreted the requirement of prior approval as directory to preserve time.  

I suggest that there are alternative ways to examine the issue. First, the prior approval of the CCI ensures respect for the commercial wisdom of the CoC as it prevents an ex-post alteration of the latter’s decision. The above sequence will help preserve the design of the IBC, which entrusts the CoC with the final say on commercial decisions in the resolution process. Second, I propose that insistence on prior approval of the CCI should be viewed as an eligibility requirement for resolution applicants instead of a procedural hurdle. The requirement of the prior approval of the CCI may dissuade insincere resolution applicants, and prevent submission of resolution plans that may crumble at the implementation stage. Cumulatively, both arguments cohere with the framework of the IBC and provide us a better understanding of its aims and procedures.  

Respect For Commercial Wisdom Of The CoC 

In most cases where petitioners have challenged the CoC’s approval of a resolution plan, courts have invoked the supremacy of the commercial wisdom of the CoC. The policy design of the IBC confers powers on the CoC to take commercial decisions, and courts can only intervene in limited and specific instances. The narrow window for judicial interference with decisions of the CoC has been rightly justified by courts by invoking limited grounds for appeal under the IBC. Courts have, thus, termed decisions of the CoC as being of paramount importance. How does the CoC’s supremacy translate into, and become relevant, in the context of the interface of the IBC and the Competition Act, 2002?

The Court in the impugned case relied on the commercial wisdom of the CoC to observe that the lack of prior approval will dilute the aforesaid design of the IBC. For example, if the CoC approves a resolution plan before it receives approval by the CCI, it would leave open the possibility of the latter suggesting modifications to the resolution plan. Permitting ex-post changes by the CCI would also strike at the finality of the CoC’s decision, and, more pertinently, alter the CoC’s position as the final arbiter of corporate debtors’ destiny. The Court underlined the paramount importance of the commercial wisdom of the CoC and reasoned that it can only be exercised assiduously if the CCI’s approval precedes the CoC’s approval. Otherwise, the CoC would be forced to exercise its commercial wisdom without complete information.   

Providing the CoC with the final say on commercial aspects of the resolution plan has remained a core idea since the initial stages of discussion on the IBC. The Bankruptcy Law Reforms Committee (‘BLRC’) had noted that one of the flaws of the pre-IBC regime was to have entrusted business and financial decisions to judicial forums. The BLRC opined that it was not ideal to let adjudicatory bodies take commercial decisions as they may not possess the relevant expertise. To overcome the flaws of the pre-IBC regime, the IBC was designed to empower only the CoC to take business decisions, as it comprises of financial creditors who may bear the loss in the resolution process. The bifurcation of roles was clear, the legislature and courts were to control and supervise the resolution process, however, all business decisions were the remit of the CoC, though it would arrive at the decision after consultation and negotiations with the corporate debtor. In a similar vein, the Court in Swiss Ribbons v Union of India noted that the financial creditors, comprising mainly of banks and financial institutions, are from the beginning involved in assessing the viability of the corporate debtor, and are best positioned to take decisions on restructuring the loan and reorganisation of the corporate debtor’s business when there is financial stress.         

The resolution applicant also suggested that the CCI’s approval could be sought by the successful applicant after the CoC’s approval but before the NCLT’s approval. First, the suggestion contravenes the plain language of the proviso. Second, the suggestion, if accepted, would still leave open the window of the CCI suggesting amendments to the CoC-approved resolution plan and strike at the IBC’s aim to give the CoC the final say on commercial aspects of the resolution plan.

In fact, the CoC approving a resolution plan which has not received the CCI’s approval would also be in contravention of other provisions of the IBC. The Court specifically mentioned that a resolution plan which contains a provision for combination is incapable of being enforced if it has not secured prior approval of the CCI. Such a plan cannot be approved by the Court as it would violate Sections 30(2)(e), 30(3), and 34(4)(a) of the IBC on grounds of being in contravention of the laws in force. Apart from the above provisions, it may be worth mentioning Section 30(4), which obligates the CoC to approve a resolution plan after considering its feasibility and viability. Clearly, evaluation of the feasibility and viability of a resolution plan must precede the CoC’s approval. The CoC should not be put in a position where it approves a resolution plan and only subsequently considers its feasibility and viability based on the CCI’s opinion, as that would disregard the IBC’s mandate.   

 Proviso To Section 31(4) As An ‘Eligibility Requirement’

 I suggest that the proviso to Section 31(4) should be viewed as an eligibility requirement for the resolution applicant. My suggestion is predicated on an analogy with Section 29A(c). Briefly put, Section 29A(c) declares that a person is ineligible to submit a resolution plan if such person or any other person acting jointly, or in concert with, it has an account classified as a non-performing asset for one year. The proviso removes the ineligibility if the person makes payment of all overdue amounts before the submission of the resolution plan. One of the resolution applicants in Arcelor Mittal India Pvt Ltd v Satish Kumar Gupta & Ors had argued that insistence on the prior payment of overdue amounts would reduce the pool of resolution applicants as their plan may not be eventually approved by the CoC, and that the proviso should be interpreted in a ‘commercially sensible’ manner wherein overdue amounts should be allowed to be paid as part of the resolution plan and not before the submission of the resolution plan.

Justice S.V.M Bhatti, in his dissenting opinion in the impugned case, has attempted to interpret proviso to Section 31(4) in a similar fashion. He has observed that insistence on prior approval by the CCI would limit the number of eligible resolution applicants. Further, he noted that the requirement of prior approval by the CCI raises a question of prudence since the resolution applicant would seek approval of its plan, which may eventually not be acceptable to the CoC.    

 In Arcelor Mittal, the Court dismissed the above line of arguments and held that the plain language of the proviso to Section 29A(c) makes it clear that the ineligibility is removed if overdue payments are made before the submission of the resolution plan. Making the overdue payments may be worth the while of the applicant as the dues may be insignificant compared to the possibility of gaining control of the corporate debtor. The Court added that it would not disregard the plain language of the proviso to avoid hardship to the resolution applicant. The above reasoning squarely applies to the proviso to Section 31(4) and is more persuasive than the dissenting opinion in the impugned case.  

 In fact, one could further engage with the argument about the proviso limiting the number of eligible resolution applicants by stating that the mandate of prior approval of the CCI may act as a filtering mechanism and attract only sincere applicants with concrete resolution plans. The receipt of the CCI approval may diminish the possibility of the resolution plan crumbling at the implementation stage due to the inability or disinclination of the resolution applicants to comply with the subsequent conditions that the CCI may impose. Knowledge of the CCI’s stance prior to the approval of the resolution plan will help in setting realistic timelines and conditions for the successful resolution applicant. 

 Section 31(4) permits the successful resolution applicant to obtain the necessary approvals required under any law for the time being in force, within one year from the date of approval by the adjudicating authority.  The proviso to Section 31(4) carves out one exception and states that if the resolution plan contains a provision for combination, the resolution applicant shall obtain the approval of the CCI prior to the approval of such resolution plan by the CoC. The language of the proviso is clear, unambiguous, and the legislative intent is unmistakable. As the Court noted in its majority opinion, courts must respect the ordinary and plain meaning of the language instead of wandering into the realm of speculation. An exception has been made in the proviso wherein resolution applicants need the prior approval of the CCI. To interpret ‘prior’ to mean ‘after’ would amount to the judicial reconstruction of a statutory provision. There is also no room to interpret the requirement of prior approval as being directory and not mandatory. Analogous to the proviso to Section 29A(c), obtaining the prior approval of the CCI may be ‘worth the while’ of the resolution applicants and this would be a  minor hardship compared to the possibility of controlling the corporate debtor.  

 Prior approval by the CCI should be viewed as an eligibility requirement for resolution applicants instead of a procedural burden. Typically, resolution professionals prescribe requirements of net worth, expertise, etc. for resolution applicants. If compliance with such conditions is not viewed as a hurdle, why view a regulatory approval only through the lens of time, as a procedural hurdle? Instead, it is better viewed as a safeguard to prevent future legal hurdles, smoothen the implementation of approved resolution plan, and to preserve the IBC’s design.  

Understanding The Anxiety About Delay

The Court, in the impugned case, has cited statistics to blunt the argument on delay. The statistics about the speed of decision-making by the CCI reveal that delays may not be significant. The Court cited the Annual General Report of the CCI for 2022-23, as per which, the average time taken by the CCI to dispose of combination applications was 21 days, and there was no recorded instance of the CCI taking more than 120 days to approve a combination application. The track record of the CCI partly convinced the Court that arguments about delays were exaggerated.

While there is merit in arguing that the insistence on prior approval by the CCI may delay the resolution process, it is important to add two caveats: first, even in cases not requiring the approval of the CCI, timelines of the IBC are not frequently respected for various reasons. This is not to suggest that additional delays would do no harm, but that delays are par for the course even when the CCI’s approval is not required. So, it is not accurate to ascribe the possible delay only to the requirement of the CCI’s prior approval. Second, prior approval by the CCI will be needed in relatively few instances, and thus there is good reason to adopt a relaxed view of timelines in such cases to avoid competition law issues after the CoC has approved the resolution plan. The additional time consumed in seeking the CCI’s approval will be for a valid reason, i.e., to address the interface of the IBC with competition law. The IBC cannot be implemented in a sealed bubble. where no extraneous factor  ever influences the speed and progress of the resolution process.  

Conclusion

I have tried to establish that once we take a step back from the time-centric arguments, we can cast a different lens on the issue of the interface of competition law and the IBC.  We can understand that the decision-making of the CoC, and other procedural requirements also need to be respected to maintain the integrity of the resolution process. Time, despite being vital, cannot solely dictate the entire resolution process. When the resolution process implicates other areas of law, such as competition law, adopting a relatively relaxed approach to the time limits of the IBC may ensure smooth approval and implementation of the resolution plan. In fact, the prior approval of the CCI aligns with the key design of the IBC, which strives to reserve final decisions on the resolution process to the CoC, subject to minimal judicial supervision. If the CCI unpacks and modifies the CoC-approved resolution plans ex-post, it will in fact, undermine the sanctity of the resolution process.

[This post was first published at NLSIR Online in May 2025.]

Rainbow Papers Case and the Art of Misinterpretation

by

On September 6, 2022, the Supreme Court pronounced its judgment in Rainbow Papers case that unsettled prevailing understanding of the waterfall mechanism under Section 53, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’). And equally unconvincingly defended the merits of the decision in the review petition further entrenching a position of law that is not aligned with the text of Section 53 of IBC and other provisions of IBC. In this post, I look at the case, its dissatisfactory interpretive approach, and the implications. 

Interpretive Question 

In the impugned case, the corporate debtor owed VAT and Central Sales Tax to the State tax authorities. When the insolvency proceedings were initiated, the tax claims were filed before the Resolution Professional, but the Resolution Professional informed the tax authorities that their claims had been waived off under the final Resolution Plan. The tax authorities challenged the Resolution Plan on the ground that tax claims cannot be waived as the State was a secured creditor. The claim of tax authorities was not accepted inter alia on the ground that tax authorities were not secured creditors as per Section 53, IBC. The appeal against the decision reached the Supreme Court.   

One of the issues before the Supreme Court was about the interplay between Section 48, Gujarat VAT Act, 2003 and Section 53, IBC. The former provided that:

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force, any amount payable by a dealer or any other person on account of tax, interest or penalty for which he is liable to pay to the Government shall be a first charge on the property of such dealer, or as the case maybe, such person.

Two things worth pointing out: first, the non-obstante clause in the provision which ensures the provision overrides every other law; second, that tax shall be the first charge on the property of the taxpayer who owes money to the State. Section 48, Gujarat VAT Act, 2003 ran into conflict with Section 53, IBC which provides for the waterfall mechanism or the priority in which proceeds from sale of liquidation assets shall be distributed. Section 53 accords priority to secured creditors while any amount due to the Union or State is lower in priority. Which means in case there is not sufficient money after payment to secured creditors, the State may not get paid its taxes owed by the corporate debtor. To prevent such a situation, tax authorities – at the Union and State level – have repeatedly argued that they are akin to secured creditors, without much success except in the impugned case. 

Section 30(2), IBC

Before the Supreme Court, the State clarified that that its case is not that Section 48, Gujarat VAT Act, 2003 prevails over Section 53, IBC. Instead, its argument was that the view of lower judicial authorities that State was not a secured creditor was an erroneous view and contrary to definition of a secured creditor. Section 3(30), IBC, 2016 defines secured creditor to mean a person in whose favor a security interest is created. And, Section 3(31) further defines security interest in wide terms to include within its scope right, title, interest, or claim to a property created in favor of or provided for a secured creditor by a transaction which secures payment or performance of an obligation and includes mortgage, charge, hypothecation, etc. Relying on the aforesaid provisions, the State claimed that the statutory charge created by Section 48, Gujarat VAT Act, 2003 was a security interest under Section 3(31) and State was a secured creditor under Section 3(30) of IBC. 

The State further argued that the approved resolution plan waived the tax claims and was not in accordance with Section 30(2), IBC which inter alia enjoins a resolution professional to examine each resolution plan received by him and ensure that liquidation costs are met and payments to operational creditors are not less than they would be received in event of liquidation. The Supreme Court accepted this argument and observed that a resolution plan that does not meet the requirements of Section 30(2) would be invalid and would not be binding on the State or Union to whom a debt in respect of dues arising under any law for the time being in force is due. (para 48)

The Supreme Court’s understanding of the scope and mandate of Section 30(2) is fair and reasonable until it applied its understanding to the facts of impugned case. As per Supreme Court, a resolution plan must be rejected by an adjudicating authority if the plan ignores statutory demands payable to State government or a legal authority altogether. (para 52) And that a Committee of Creditors cannot secure its dues at the cost of statutory dues owed to the Government. (para 54) Thus, if a company cannot repay its debts – including statutory dues – and there is no contemplation of dissipation of its debts in a phased manner, then the company should be liquidated, its assets sold, and proceeds distributed as per Section 53, IBC, 2016.   

The above observations mean that a resolution plan of corporate debtor is contrary to Section 30(2), IBC, 2016 if it waives statutory dues. This observation casts too wide a tax net, and would possibly mean that tax waivers for corporate debtors would inevitably make the resolution plan violative of IBC, 2016 defeating the purpose of reviving distressed companies. If the tax burden of a corporate debtor – significant or otherwise – cannot be waived to ensure its revival, and every tax outstanding tax demand must be necessarily or in some proportion to be satisfied, that places an onerous burden on a distressed company. Some elbow room needs to be available to final a resolution plan that may waive some outstanding tax dues to revive the company in question.  

State as a Secured Creditor 

The other issue that the Supreme Court had to navigate was whether the non-obstante clause of Section 48, Gujarat VAT Act, 2003 would prevail over the non-obstante clause contained in Section 53, IBC. The Supreme Court held that the two provisions are not in conflict with each other as the latter cannot override the former since the State is a secured creditor. It noted: 

Section 3(30) of the IBC defines secured creditor to mean a creditor in favour of whom security interest is credited. Such security interest could be created by operation of law. The definition of secured creditor in the IBC does not exclude any Government or Governmental Authority. (para 57)

The above cited conclusion of the Supreme Court is clearly contradictory to the understanding that prevailed before this decision and the text of Section 53, IBC. Secured creditors are a separate category under Section 53, IBC while dues owed to the Union or State – that are to be credited either to the Consolidated Fund of India or the State – are a separate category. Since, the latter have been clearly demarcated as a separate category it is evidence that the legislators did not intend to club them with secured creditors. The only reasonable explanation for including State as a secured creditor was if the taxes due to the State were not mentioned as a separate category in Section 53, IBC. However, when dues payable to State have clearly been mentioned as a separate category, there is little justification to include State in secured creditor category. Merely by observing that the definition of secured creditor does not expressly exclude State from its definition, does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that State is included. Provisions of IBC need to be interpreted harmoniously, and Court should have taken cognizance of the definition of secured creditor alongside the waterfall mechanism under Section 53, IBC to arrive at a more reasonable conclusion. 

Review of Rainbow Case 

An application to review the decision in Rainbow case was filed, inter alia, on the ground that the Supreme Court in a subsequent decision had cast suspicion on the Rainbow case. The Supreme Court in PVVN Ltdcase noted that the judgment in Rainbow case ‘has to be confined to the facts of that case alone.’ (para 53) It clearly doubted the correctness of the judgment and observed that Parliament’s intent to accord to lower priority to State’s dues was clear from Section 53, IBC. Relying on the observations of the PVVN Ltd, a review was filed against the Rainbow decision. The Supreme Court dismissed the review and held that in Rainbow case all the relevant provisions were correctly and categorically reproduced, and the ‘well- considered judgment’ should not be reviewed. (para 27)    

Conclusion 

The decision in Rainbow case is an apt example of the misinterpretation and the error is blatant because there is no ambiguity in Section 53, IBC and the ‘silence’ in the definition of secured creditor was unjustifiably interpreted in favor of the State. By interpreting the definition of secured creditor and security interest in an unjustifiably wide manner, the Supreme Court completely upturned the priority of payments prescribed under Section 53, IBC. And while some of us make take solace in the fact that the decision in Rainbow case will be confined only to the facts of that case, it is just polite speak for a decision that goes against the plain text and intent of IBC. And what does ‘confined to facts of the case’ really mean? If any statute creates a charge in favor of State, Rainbow case is applicable? Or anytime taxes due are waived from a resolution plan, Rainbow case is applicable? The answers aren’t clear.  

In my view, Rainbow case is an example of misinterpretation of IBC, and no less. The suggestion that its applicability is confined only to the facts of the case cannot hide the misinterpretation of relevant provisions of IBC, specifically the scope and meaning of secured creditor.    

NCLT Cannot Declare an Assessment Order as Void: Kerala HC

by

The Kerala High Court in a recent judgment used strong words against an order of NCLT, Kochi Bench for declaring an assessment order passed under KVAT Act as void ab initio. The High Court observed that NCLT did not have the power to declare an assessment as void ab initio and quashed its order. I describe the case below and state whether there was a need for Kerala High Court to use harsh words against NCLT. 

Before I describe the case, it is important to reiterate, for context, that Section 14, IBC, 2016 imposes a moratorium on initiation of any coercive legal action against the corporate debtor. Section 14(1)(a) empowers the adjudicating authority to declare a moratorium for prohibiting the institution of suits or continuation of suits against the corporate debtor including any judgment, decree, or order in any court of law. While Section 33(5), IBC, 2016 states that where a liquidation order has been passed, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be initiated by or against the corporate debtor except with prior approval of the adjudicating authority.   

Facts 

The petitioner, Deputy Commissioner (Works Contract) approached the Kerala High Court impugning an order of NCLT, Kochi passed on 26.10.2022 under Section 33(5), IBC, 2016. 

The company, the corporate debtor, against whom an assessment order was passed was under the liquidation process under IBC, 2016 and was admitted into the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (‘CIRP’) on 25.10.2019. The CIRP effected public announcement on 03.11.2019 and a moratorium was declared under Section 14, IBC, 2016 which was to be effective on 02.12.2021, the day on which liquidation order was passed.

For the year 2015-16, the GST Department found certain discrepancies relating to VAT payments by the corporate debtor. For the year 2015-16, the corporate debtor was issued a notice under Section 25, KVAT. The assessment against the corporate debtor was completed via order dated 25.02.2021 and total VAT liability was determined as 11,76,35,626.70/- On a Form-C dated 04.01.2022 the Department claimed the said tax amount before the resolution professional appointed for the corporate debtor under IBC, 2016. 

Against the Form-C application, the corporate debtor filed an application before NCLT, Kochi under Section 33(5), IBC, 2016 seeking permission to prefer an appeal against the order of assessment dated 25.02.2021. 

While the petitioner had filed an application seeking permission to file an appeal against the order of assessment, NCLT, Kochi declared the assessment order as void ab initio. NCLT stated that the assessment order had been passed in violation of the prohibition contained in Section 14(1)(a), IBC, 2016 and directed that the tax claim be considered independently without considering the assessment order passed on 25.02.2021. Against the NCLT’s order, the State approached the Kerala High Court.  

Kerala High Court Expounds on the Law 

The issue before the Kerala High Court was: whether the NCLT is empowered to declare an assessment order as void ab initio under Section 33(5) of IBC? The straightforward answer is no, and the High Court arrived at the same conclusion, but not before it had a few harsh words to say about NCLT, Kochi. 

The law on the interface of tax claims and IBC has been expounded by various judgments, with the Courts on various occasions clarifying the overriding effect of IBC over all other legislations including tax laws. The Kerala High Court relied on two judgments, VM Deshpande case and the Sundaresh Bhatt case. The latter case was decided in the context of interplay of IBC, 2016 and Customs Act where the Supreme Court had clarified that the custom authorities can only determine the tax, interest, fine or any penalties that are due but cannot enforce their claims during the period of moratorium. This was the ratio of VM Deshpande case too, though decided in the pre-IBC period. 

The Kerala High Court relied on the above two precedents to enunciate that the law was that the tax authorities have the limited power to determine the quantum of tax and make assessments, but not enforce its demands. Accordingly, it rightly held that: 

Thus, after declaring the moratorium, there is an embargo on enforcing the demand, but there is no embargo under Section 14, read with Section 33(5) of the IBC, for determining the quantum of tax and other levies, if any, against the Corporate Debtor. (para 5.3) 

Applying the said dictums to the impugned case meant that during the moratorium the VAT assessments could have been finalized against the corporate debtor, but the said tax assessments could not be enforced. And in enforcing the said tax demands, there was a violation of Section 14, IBC, 2016. In seeking permission of NCLT to appeal against the enforcement of the tax demands, the corporate debtor was trying to enforce the law as laid down by Supreme Court in previous decisions. The NCLT went a few steps ahead and declared the tax assessment as void ab initio and non-est in law. A power that it certainly does not possess under any of the relevant provisions of IBC, 2016. NCLT should have merely provided the corporate debtor a permission to appeal, while not commenting on the assessment order per se. The Kerala High Court correctly quashed NCLT’s order and in doing so termed it as preposterous, untenable, and showing a lack of basic understanding of law. (para 6)

Conclusion 

The Kerala High Court correctly interpreted and applied the relevant precedents to the facts of the case. Equally, it was right in terming the NCLT’s order as untenable in law. The High Court in striking down the NCLT’s order also commented on the quality of persons in NCLT and their competence. I’m sure there are more suitable and appropriate channels to address the quality of personnel in NCLT instead of commenting on their legal aptitude in a judgment. I do not agree with NCLT striking down the assessment order and NCLT should have approached the issue in a more considered manner, but the Kerala High Court’s comments on NCLT personnel in the judgment could have been avoided as well.         

Delhi High Court Reiterates the Law on Interface of IBC and Tax

by

The Delhi High Court in a recent case[1] reiterated the legal position relating to outstanding tax of an entity which has or is undergoing the insolvency process under IBC, 2016. In the impugned case, the Revenue Department claimed that the petitioner owed it taxes despite such the Revenue Department’s claims not being part of the approved resolution plan. The High Court relying on relevant precedents stated that tax claims that were not part of the approved resolution plan stand extinguished and the Revenue Department is also bound by the resolution plan approved under IBC, 2016. 

Facts 

The petitioner, TUF Metallurgical Pvt Ltd, took over the management of the erstwhile corporate debtor in accordance with the terms of the resolution plan which was approved by the NCLT under Section 31(1), IBC, 2016 via order dated 05.11.2019. The public advertisement regarding commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was issued under Section 15, IBC, 2016 stating that the last date for filing of claims was 21.01.2019. But until the said date the Revenue Department did not submit any claim. It was on 12.12.2019 that the Revenue Department passed an order against the petitioner qua Assessment Year 2017-18. The petitioner’s claim was that the tax demand was barred after the approval of resolution plan was rejected by the Revenue Department which issued a Demand Notice and levied a penalty on the petitioner. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. 

Arguments 

The arguments of the petitioner and the Revenue Department were straightforward. The petitioners argued that the Revenue Department ignored the legal and factual ramifications which ensued on conclusion of any insolvency process. The petitioner stated that once the resolution plan was approved by the concerned authority, it was not open to the Revenue Department to open stale claims which were settled upon conclusion of the insolvency proceedings. The Revenue Department, on the other hand, argued that it stood on a ‘different footing’ from other creditors and that the tax claims of the Revenue Department would not be affected by the provisions of IBC, 2016. (para 4)

Decision 

Given that the argument of the Revenue Department did not have a legal leg to stand on, the decision of the Delhi High Court did not involve unravelling a complex legal web. The High Court’s conclusion rested on Supreme Court’s observations in Ghanshyam Mishra’s case[2], where the Supreme Court categorically observed that once the resolution plan has been approved by the adjudicating authority under Section 31(1), IBC, 2016, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and shall be binding on the corporate debtor, its employees, members, Central Government, State Government, guarantors and other stakeholders. It was clarified by the Supreme Court that claims that are not part of the resolution plan shall stand extinguished and no person shall be entitled to initiate or continue proceedings in respect of claims which were not part of the resolution plan. It was further clarified that the said bar also applies to tax due to the Central or State Government. 

The conclusion, based on the findings in Ghanshyam Mishra case is that if the Revenue Department fails to respond to the public advertisement in time, its claims will not be part of the resolution plan. And subsequently, the Revenue Department cannot initiate proceedings in respect of taxes due prior to initiation of insolvency proceedings on the ground that it stands on a different footing than other creditors. Courts and IBC, 2016 do not acknowledge, and rightly so, that the Revenue Department is not bound by terms of the resolution plan. Accordingly, the Delhi High Court in the impugned case allowed the petitioner’s writ petition and set aside the demand and orders by the Revenue Department.     

Conclusion It is indeed a case of unending mystery that why does the Revenue Department does not respond to the public notices relating to commencement of insolvency process on time. And if it for some reason fails to respond to the notices on time, why does it initiate proceedings against the assessees, when the law clearly states that the provisions of IBC, 2016 shall override all other laws,[3] which of course also includes tax legislations. And more specifically, if the Revenue Department’s claim was not part of the approved resolution plan, the claim stands extinguished. The Revenue Department does not stand on a ‘different’ footing from other creditors. The IBC, 2016 certainly does not state so. It is a self-image that the Revenue Department has conjured with no legal basis.    

[1] TUF Metallurgical Pvt Ltd v Union of India & Anr 2023:DHC:8856-DB.

[2] Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Pvt Ltd v Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co Ltd (2021) 9 SCC 657. 

[3] Section 238, IBC, 2016. 

Sanctity of IBC Prevails Over Tax Claims: NCLT Mumbai

by

In a recent order[1], NLCT Mumbai has ruled that the time bound process of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) will prevail over payment of belated Government dues, i.e., taxes. NCLT in the impugned case only reiterated an opinion expressed earlier, but the Revenue Department tends to need frequent reminders about certain elemental aspects of law. 

Facts 

In the impugned case, the Department of State (Tax) (‘Revenue Department’) filed an application under Section 60(5), IBC against the Resolution Professional of M/s Calchem Industries Pvt Ltd seeking directions that the Resolution Professional should deal with their claims and process them as per IBC. The Revenue Department had filed their claim with the Resolution Professional via letter/email on 08.10.2021 and the same was rejected by the latter on the ground that the Committee of Creditors had already approved the Resolution Plan on 13.10.2020. 

The Revenue Department assailed the rejection of their application as illegal and relied on Regulation 14 of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Person) Regulations, 2016. As per Regulation 14 the Resolution Professional shall make best estimate of the amount of claim based on information available to him. The Revenue Department argued that since their claims are statutory dues, the Resolution Professional should have incorporated the same in his estimate. The Revenue Department cited certain precedents to support its claim and also argued, rather strangely, that the delay in their application was caused since they were following the due procedure of law. (para 14)

The Resolution Professional, on the other hand, largely defended its rejection of the Revenue Department’s application on the ground of delay. The Resolution Professional informed NCLT that the public announcement dated 1.10.2019 had clearly stated that the last date for filing of claims was 14.10.2019 while the Revenue Department filed its initial claim on 8.10.2021.  

NCLT Decides 

NCLT cited the RPS Infrastructure case[2] to reiterate that undecided claims cannot make the CRP process endless. And it concluded that: 

Therefore, any interruption in the CIR process at this belated stage by allowing the application might open the floodgate for the similar claims, causing unnecessary delays in the CIRP process. (para 22)

NCLT, engaged with the various precedents cited by the Revenue Department in some detail and observed that one of the arguments made in previous cases was that since government dues would always be reflected in the books of account of the corporate debtor, the Resolution Professional should take them into account in its estimate. NCLT distinguished facts of the impugned case from the precedents and observed that out of the total amount claimed by the Revenue Department only some amount was reflected in the books of account on the date of initiation of CIRP. And that the assessment orders for other amounts were passed after initiation of CIRP. Thus, the latter could not have been reflected in the books of account of the corporate debtor at the time of initiation of CIRP. 

NCLT emphasised on the objective of IBC which aimed for insolvency resolution of the corporate debtor in a time bound manner and that priority accorded to Government dues was different as compared to the Companies Act. In other words, government dues were not in top hierarchy under the waterfall mechanism of IBC. While the latter was not germane to the issue at hand, NCLT did well to remind the Revenue Department that is claims did not supersede ever other claim against the corporate debtor. NCLT, thus, disallowed the application of the Revenue Department except to the extent tax dues were reflected in the books of account of the corporate debtor on the date of preparation of the Memorandum of Information by the Resolution Professional. (para 27)

Conclusion 

NCLT’s judgment in the impugned case, is another in a series of decisions where the Revenue Department has been informed that its dues are not sacrosanct and need to be secured only as per the timelines, processes and waterfall mechanism provided in the IBC. While in the impugned case, the Revenue Department secured a partial victory, and rightly so, it is another in a disconcerting trend where the Revenue Department tends to think, almost incorrigibly, that its tax dues should be paid irrespective of what the letter of law says.  

[1] Department of State Tax v Resolution Professional of M/s. Calchem Industries (India Limited), IA/282/2022 & IA426/2022, available at https://nclt.gov.in/gen_pdf.php?filepath=/Efile_Document/ncltdoc/casedoc/2709138000222022/04/Order-Challenge/04_order-Challange_004_1696595733706984618651fff15f3463.pdf (Accessed on 13.10.2023). 

[2] RPS Infrastructure Ltd v Mukul Kumar & Anr (2023) ibclaws.in 102 SC. 

Supreme Court Reiterates Non-Obstante Clause of Section 529A, Companies Act, 1956

by

In a recent judgment[1], the Supreme Court opined on the priority to be accorded to custom authorities vis-à-vis secured creditors under the Companies Act, 1956. It accorded due deference to the overriding nature of Section 529A under which tax due by a company under winding up is not to be the foremost payment. While the judgment is under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956 it is important to highlight how a seemingly straightforward issue – ranking of tax dues from a company under the winding up or insolvency process – has a unduly long legacy that continues to simmer under the IBC as well. 

Introduction 

The appeal before the Supreme Court was against an order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court where it held that notwithstanding the winding up order against the impugned company – M/s Sri Vishnupriya Industries Limited – and Sections 529A and 530 of the Companies Act, 1956, the custom authorities have the first right to sell the imported goods and adjust the sale proceeds towards payment of customs duty. The appeal was filed by Industrial Development Bank of India from which the company had sought financial assistance and to which the company had hypothecated movable properties, namely machinery and its components.

The company had imported the machinery and components and on failure to pay the customs duty, an order was passed to detain and sell the said property for satisfaction of the outstanding customs duty. In the meanwhile, an order for winding up of company was passed and the Official Liquidator so appointed requested the custom authorities to hand over the properties of the company which the latter planned to auction for payment of customs duty. The Andhra Pradesh High Court faced with the question as to whether the rights of a secured creditor should have precedence over custom authorities, decided in favor of the latter.    

Interplay of Provisions of Companies Act, 1956

Supreme Court was categorical, and rightly so, in its examination of Section 529A of Companies Act, 1956. It noted that Section 529A enlisted that workmen’s dues and debts of secured creditors shall be paid in preference to all other payments, and the non-obstante clause in the provision made it clear that these payments were to be made in preference to all other payments in the winding up of a company. And all other payments enlisted in Section 530 were to be made subject to the prescription of Section 529A. Supreme Court concluded that it is ‘beyond debate’ that provisions of Section 529A shall prevail of Section 530 of the Companies Act, 1956. (para 11)

The result of this clear and unambiguous position and effect of both provisions, was, in Supreme Court’s own words: 

… IDBI is an overriding preferential creditor under Section 529A of the Companies Act and at best, if the requirements of clause (a) to Section 530(1) of the Companies Act are satisfied, the customs dues would fall under Section 530 of the Companies Act and will be categorized as preferential payment. (para 19) 

The Supreme Court, out of abundant caution, went into the meaning and interpretation of certain phrases used in Section 529A and Section 530, Companies Act, 1956. It went into detail and cited precedents as to what the terms ‘due’ and ‘due and payable’ mean under the provisions. 

The Supreme Court then clarified that as per the law laid down in relevant precedents, such as the Dena Bankcase[2], government dues do not have priority over secured creditors. The principle so enunciated in the Dena Bank case aligned with the Supreme Court’s interpretation and interplay of Section 529A and Section 530 in the impugned case. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the principle laid down in the Dena Bank case must give way to a statutory charge that may be created by an enactment. In the context of impugned case, it meant that the Supreme Court had to examine if Customs Act, 1962 created a first charge for payment of customs duty and if there was a conflict between the Companies Act, 1956 and Customs Act, 1962. Supreme Court’s conclusion on this point was: 

The provisions in the Customs Act do not, in any manner, negate or override the statutory preference in terms of Section 529A of the Companies Act, which treats the secured creditors and the workmen’s dues as overriding preferential creditors; and the government dues limited to debts ‘due and payable’ in the twelve months next before the relevant date, which are to be treated as preferential payments under Section 530 of the Companies Act, but are ranked below overriding preferential payments and have to be paid after the payment has been made in terms of Section 529 and 529A of the Companies Act. Therefore, the prior secured creditors are entitled to enforce their charge, notwithstanding the government dues payable under the Customs Act. (para 24)

The Supreme Court further clarified that the charge created under Section 142A, Customs Act, 1962 protects the rights of third parties under Section 529A, Companies Act, 1956 inter alia of those under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. And that Section 142A, Customs Act, 1962 does not create a first charge on the dues payable under the said legislation.         

Conclusion

While the Supreme Court’s judgment focuses on the interplay of provisions of Companies Act, 1956, its observations in the latter half of the judgment clarify, to some extent, the position of law after the implementation of IBC. The fact that Customs Act, 1962 does not create a statutory charge is an important and correct position of law as it clarifies that tax authorities – at least, customs authorities – are not placed above the preferential creditors. This may prove useful in unfortunate but frequent disputes between tax authorities seeking priority payment of outstanding dues over secured creditors of the company under insolvency, despite that the waterfall mechanism under IBC does not place the tax authorities above the secured creditors.  

[1] Industrial Development Bank of India v Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs and Others, available at https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2009/114/114_2009_3_1501_46202_Judgement_18-Aug-2023.pdf (Last accessed on 21 August 2023). 

[2] Dena Bank v Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh & Co and Others (2000) 5 SCC 694. 

Interface of IBC and Tax: Supreme Court Clarifies

by

In a notable judgment[1], the Supreme Court has clarified the waterfall mechanism under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) vis-à-vis the claims of secured interests and the place of the Revenue Department in the pecking order. 

Introduction 

The appellant, PVVNL was aggrieved by an order of the NCLAT directing release of the corporate debtor’s property. The property was attached by the District Magistrate in favor of the appellant, but NCLAT ordered its release for sale in favor of the liquidator to distribute the proceeds in accordance with the IBC.  

The appellant raised bills for supply of electricity to corporate debtor but since the bills remained unpaid, the appellant attached the properties of the corporate debtor and restrained transfer of property by sale, donation, or any other mode. The corporate debtor underwent a resolution under IBC failing which it became subject to liquidation. The liquidator took the plea that unless the attachment orders were set aside no one would purchase the property of the corporate debtor. Further, the appellant would be classified in the order of priority prescribed under waterfall mechanism of IBC. Both, NCLT and NCLAT endorsed the view that appellant was an operational creditor and would realize its due in the liquidation process as per the law.   

Arguments and Supreme Court’s Observations 

One of the appellant’s arguments was that the charge on property was created under the Electricity Act, 2003 and it being a special legislation should have priority over general legislation such as IBC. Supreme Court did not accept the appellant’s argument claiming priority of Electricity Act, 2003 over IBC. However, Supreme Court acknowledged that a reading of the relevant provisions of the agreement between the appellant and corporate debtor revealed that the appellant could create a charge on the property of the latter in event of unpaid bills. And that a valid charge was created in favor of the appellant. The crucial question was the priority that the appellant would acquire under the IBC. 

The counsel for liquidator argued that the amount due to the appellant was ‘government dues’ and low in priority as per the waterfall mechanism of Section 53, IBC. Supreme Court disagreed and noted that dues payable to statutory corporations were on a different footing compared to the amounts payable to the central and state governments. Supreme Court observed that: 

PVVNL undoubtedly has government participation. However, that does not render it a government or a part of the ‘State Government’. Its functions can be replicated by other entities, both private and public. The supply of electricity, the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity has been liberalized in terms of the 2003 Act barring certain segments. Private entities are entitled to hold licenses. In this context, it has to be emphasized that private participation as distribution licensees is fairly widespread. For these reasons, it is held that in the present case, dues or amounts payable to PVVNL do not fall within the description of Section 53(1)(f) of the IBC. (para 47)

The appellant – PVVNL – on the other hand, relied on Rainbow Papers case which had held that the debts owed to a secured creditor included tax due to the Government under the Gujarat VAT Act, 2003. The Rainbow Papers case was an anomaly as the waterfall mechanism clearly prescribes priority to secured creditors while placing the government dues lower in the pecking order. The Supreme Court refused to adhere to the Rainbow Papers case and observed that the Court in that case ‘did not notice’ Section 53, IBC. Commenting on the Rainbow Papers case, Supreme Court observed:

Furthermore, Rainbow Papers (supra) was in the context of a resolution process and not during liquidation. Section 53, as held earlier, enacts the waterfall mechanism providing for the hierarchy or priority of claims of various classes of creditors. The careful design of Section 53 locates amounts payable to secured creditors and workmen at the second place, after the costs and expenses of the liquidator payable during the liquidation proceedings. However, the dues payable to the government are placed much below those of secured creditors and even unsecured and operational creditors. This design was either not brought to the notice of the court in Rainbow Papers (supra) or was missed altogether. In any event, the judgment has not taken note of the provisions of the IBC which treat the dues payable to secured creditors at a higher footing than dues payable to Central or State Government. (para 49)

The above observations are a categorical rejection of the inadequate reasoning adopted in Rainbow Paperscase whereby government was equated as a secured creditor and helped the government claim tax dues on priority by ‘jumping’ the queue. The Supreme Court in the impugned case was accurate in its observation that if there was no specific and separate enumeration of government dues under Section 53(1)(e) of IBC, it would be possible to hold that the government is a secured creditor. However, the enumeration of separate categories of a secured creditor and government dues under Section 53 indicates the Parliament’s intent to treat the latter differently and at a lower priority. 

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s observations in the impugned case are welcome. The Revenue has in various attempts tried to bypass the waterfall mechanism of IBC by making various arguments such as tax dues should be treated as part of the insolvency costs as the latter are first in priority under the waterfall mechanism. It is important to recognize the importance of the observations in in the impugned case and yet be mindful that the Supreme Court has not expressly overruled the Rainbow case. For example, the Supreme Court did add that the observations made in the Rainbow case were in the context of resolution process while the impugned case involved liquidation. (para 49) We are likely to witness more disputes on the interface of IBC and tax in the future. Though, a more reasonable interpretation of the waterfall mechanism under Section 53, IBC suggests that the Supreme Court’s observations in the impugned case are more reasonable and accurate.     

[1] Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited v Raman Ispat Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 534. 

LinkedIn