Another company of Anil Ambani has got a big relief. This relief is related to Reliance Communications, on which the insolvency process is going on. NCLAT rejected the petition of Maharashtra State Tax Department claiming dues from Reliance Communications (RCom). NCLAT has said that this claim was based on the assessment made after the insolvency resolution process started against the debt-ridden company. The two-member NCLAT bench upheld the earlier order passed by the Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which had rejected the second claim of Rs 6.10 crore of the state tax department.
The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against RCom was initiated on June 22, 2019. The state tax department had filed two claims. The first claim was filed on July 24, 2019 for Rs 94.97 lakh and the second claim was filed on November 15, 2021 for Rs 6.10 crore, arising out of the assessment order dated August 30, 2021. The NCLT had accepted the first claim, which was passed before the initiation of CIRP. However, the NCLT did not accept the claim which was based on the assessment order passed in 2021.
RCom's committee of creditors (CoC) also approved the plan on March 2, 2020 and the subsequent claim was filed by the state tax department on November 15, 2021. The said order was challenged before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) by the state tax department, which argued that the NCLT should have admitted the entire claim. However, the NCLAT rejected it, saying that the next claim was filed after the CoC's approval of the plan. It upheld the NCLT's view that delay in filing the second claim cannot be condoned.
The NCLAT bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and Arun Baroka said that apart from the reasons given by the NCLT, we are of the view that the claim which was based on the valuation done after the initiation of CIRP could not be accepted. The order further said that thus we do not find any error in the order of NCLT partially allowing the application. There is no merit in the appeal. Therefore the appeal is dismissed.
