National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Appeal Against Liquidator's Rejection of Claim Due to Delay. Claim Filed 896 Days Late Cannot Be Admitted Under the Insolvency Framework.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Mangaluru, against the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) which dismissed the Appellant's application for condonation of delay in filing a claim during the liquidation of M/s Doshion Private Limited. The Corporate Debtor was engaged in water treatment and was ordered to be liquidated on 03.10.2023. The Appellant, as an operational creditor, initiated adjudication proceedings under the GST Acts and determined a tax liability of ₹8,10,000 on 21.02.2026. The Appellant filed its claim on 22.04.2026, which was rejected by the Liquidator on the grounds of being belated. The Appellant contended that the delay was due to the time taken for the adjudication process and sought condonation of the delay of 896 days. The NCLT dismissed the application, stating that the Appellant failed to establish sufficient reasons for the delay and that the claim was filed after the prescribed period. The Appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority had erred in its reasoning and had not considered the judicial precedents supporting its application. The Appellate Tribunal found that the claim was indeed filed late and that the Adjudicating Authority had acted within its jurisdiction. It held that the claim could not be admitted as it did not comply with the timelines set by the Code and Regulations, and the Appellant's explanation for the delay was insufficient. The appeal was ultimately dismissed.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Liquidation Process - Admission of Claims - Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - The Appellant's claim was filed 896 days after the last date for submission, which was fixed at 08.11.2023. The Adjudicating Authority correctly dismissed the application as the claim did not fit within the time limits established by the Code and Regulations. Held that the claim could not be admitted due to the significant delay (Paras 63-64).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the claim based on the order dated 21.02.2026 can be admitted in a liquidation that began on 03.10.2023 and whether the delay of 896 days deserves to be condoned.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the NCLT's decision that the claim was filed 896 days late and that no sufficient cause was shown for condonation of the delay. The Tribunal held that the claim could not be admitted as it did not comply with the timelines set by the Code and Regulations.

Law Points

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code
  • 2016
  • Section 60(5)
  • Section 42
  • Liquidation Process Regulations
  • Section 38(1)
  • Section 39
  • Section 40
  • Section 53
  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act
  • 2017
  • Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act
  • Section 74
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (10) 16

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1752 of 2026

2026-10-29

Naresh Salecha

Mr. Janak Purohit, Mr. Sandeep Huilgol, Mr. Kunal Vaishnav, Mr. Yuvraj Thakore

Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (Audit) - I, Mangaluru

M/s Doshion Private Limited, Sumedha Management Solutions Private Limited

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the dismissal of an application for condonation of delay in filing a claim during liquidation proceedings.

Remedy Sought

The Appellant sought to set aside the Liquidator's rejection of its claim and to condone the delay in filing the claim.

Filing Reason

The Appellant contended that the delay was due to the time taken for adjudication of tax liability.

Previous Decisions

The NCLT dismissed the application stating insufficient reasons for delay and that the claim was filed after the prescribed period.

Issues

Whether the claim based on the order dated 21.02.2026 can be admitted in a liquidation that began on 03.10.2023. Whether the delay of 896 days deserves to be condoned.

Submissions/Arguments

The Appellant argued that the delay was due to the adjudication process and that it acted promptly after the liability was determined. The Respondents contended that the delay was unjustified and that the claim was filed significantly late.

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellate Tribunal held that claims must be filed within the timelines established by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and its Regulations, and that the delay of 896 days was not justified. The Tribunal emphasized that the timing of the claim's crystallization does not alter the requirement for timely submission under the insolvency framework.

Judgment Excerpts

The claim was filed 896 days after the last date. No sufficient cause is shown for the delay. The Liquidator had no power to accept it.

Procedural History

The Appellant filed an application under Section 60(5) of the Code after the Liquidator rejected its claim on 02.05.2026. The NCLT dismissed the application on 22.07.2026, leading to the present appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 60(5), Section 42, Section 38(1), Section 39, Section 40, Section 53
  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: Section 74
  • Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: Section 74
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheating Case Due to Civil Nature of Dispute and Lack of Criminal Intent. Failure to Repay Loan Does Not Constitute Cheating Under Section 420 IPC When Transaction is Essentially a Civil Debt.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes FIR in Cheating Case Due to Civil Nature of Dispute. Failure to repay loan does not constitute cheating under Section 420 IPC when there is no initial dishonest intention.