Case Details

Case Name: I.A (I.B) No. 2069/KB/2024 In C.P (I.B) No. 03/KB/2017

Parties: The Commissioner of CGST & CX, Kolkata North Commissionerate & Ors. (Applicants/Petitioners) vs. Vinod Kumar Kothari, Liquidator, Nicco Corporation Limited (Respondent/Liquidator)

Court/Authority: National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata Bench

Date of Pronouncement: 21st May 2026

Coram: Smt. Bidisha Banerjee (Member - Judicial) and Ms. Rekha Kantilal Shah (Member - Technical)

Period of Dispute: The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated on 18.01.2017, and the liquidation order was passed on 17.10.2017. The claim was submitted on 27.06.2022, 1679 days after the last date for filing claims (22.11.2017).

Parties Involved

Petitioners/Applicants: The Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Kolkata North Commissionerate, represented by its divisional authorities from Barrackpore CGST & CX Division and BBD Bag-I Division. Legal representation was provided by Advocates Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee and Mr. Abhradip Maity.

Respondent: Mr. Vinod Kumar Kothari, the Liquidator of Nicco Corporation Limited, represented by Ms. Barsha Dikshit, PCS and Ms. Neha Malu, PCS.

Corporate Debtor: Nicco Corporation Limited.

Issues / Allegations / Violations

  • The Applicants (CGST authorities) sought directions for the Liquidator to consider their belated claim of ₹185,11,94,015/- (₹185.12 crore) against Nicco Corporation Ltd., submitted in Form C on 27.06.2022.
  • The claim was based on multiple Orders-in-Original confirming duty demands against the Corporate Debtor, passed after show cause notices and adjudication proceedings.
  • The core issue was an inordinate delay of 1679 days in submitting the claim, far beyond the statutory timeline. The Applicants contended this delay was unintentional, caused by a lack of awareness of the liquidation proceedings, misplacement of departmental records, illegible documents, and office shifts.
  • The Applicants argued that despite submitting the claim via their erstwhile Senior Standing Counsel in June 2022, they received no communication from the Liquidator regarding its admission or rejection, leading them to presume a deemed rejection.

Findings & Observations

  • The Tribunal noted the Liquidator had duly complied with statutory requirements by publishing the public announcement of liquidation in four newspapers (Financial Express, Aaj Kal, Odisha Bhaskar, Mumbai Mitra) on 25.10.2017 and 26.10.2017 and uploading it to the IBBI portal and the corporate debtor's website.
  • It was observed that public announcement is the primary mode of calling for claims under the IBC, and individual service is not mandated. A statutory authority like the GST department is expected to exercise diligence and cannot plead ignorance of publicly advertised proceedings.
  • The delay of 1679 days was deemed extraordinary and far beyond any permissible period under the IBC framework.
  • The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulal (2020), which held that inordinate delay by a government authority cannot be condoned mechanically merely because it is the government, and the law of limitation binds everybody.
  • It also referenced the NCLAT judgment in Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes (Audit), Raichur Vs Surana Industries Ltd., which held that accepting claims after prolonged delay would unsettle the claims register and adversely impact the mandatory, time-bound liquidation process.
  • The Tribunal found no legally sustainable reason for condoning such a prolonged delay and held that accepting the claim would severely prejudice other stakeholders who submitted claims on time, requiring a re-opening of the claims register and a re-working of the distribution waterfall under Section 53 of the Code.

Penalties / Settlements / Directions

  • The application (I.A. (I.B) No. 2069/KB/2024) was dismissed and disposed of.
  • No monetary penalty was imposed on the Applicants, but their entire claim of ₹185.12 crore was effectively barred from being considered in the liquidation process.
  • The dismissal protects the financial interests of other creditors by preventing a re-opening of the settled claims distribution process.

Corrective Actions & Future Obligations

  • The order does not impose any specific corrective actions or future obligations on the parties.
  • It reinforces the strict adherence to timelines under the IBC and sets a precedent for government authorities to monitor corporate insolvency and liquidation proceedings diligently.

Final Ruling & Enforcement

  • The final ruling was a complete dismissal of the Applicants' plea.
  • The order is immediately enforceable, and the liquidation process for Nicco Corporation Limited will proceed without considering the belated GST claim.
  • The certified copy of the order is to be supplied to the parties upon application with the Registry, subject to compliance with requisite formalities.