Authority: National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench

Order Date: 12 June 2026

Case Overview

This application (I.A. No. 69/KB/2026) was filed by Mr. Prateek S Jain, a GST consultant, against Mr. Pratim Bayal (the current Resolution Professional) and Mr. Shantanu Bhattacharjee (the erstwhile Resolution Professional) of Nandini Impex Private Limited. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against Nandini Impex was initiated on 20 September 2022 by UCO Bank. Mr. Bhattacharjee was initially appointed as the IRP and later confirmed as RP by the CoC, before being replaced by Mr. Bayal on 20 February 2025.

The Applicant sought a declaration that his professional fees of ₹6,48,000 for GST compliance services rendered during the CIRP (from September 2022 to September 2024) constituted 'Insolvency Resolution Process Costs' (CIRP Costs). He argued that his engagement was implied through official email communications, partial payments of ₹6,40,000 made by the erstwhile RP, and the acceptance of his services without objection. The total fee claimed was ₹12,88,000.

The Respondent RP (Mr. Bayal) contended that the Applicant was never formally appointed under the CIRP framework, with no appointment letter, CoC approval, or engagement through an Insolvency Professional Agency. He argued the fees were excessive and unreasonable for a corporate debtor with negligible business activity that filed mostly nil GST returns. The Respondent also stated that the partial payments made by the previous RP were a full and final settlement, and that the services were later handled internally due to inefficiency.

The Tribunal analyzed whether the fees qualified as CIRP costs under Section 5(13) of the IBC, 2016, particularly under clause (c) as "costs incurred by the resolution professional in running the business of the corporate debtor as a going concern." It also referenced IBBI Circular No. IBBI/IP/013/2018 and Regulation 27 of the IBBI (Insolvency Professionals) Regulations, 2016, which mandate that all CIRP costs must be reasonable, necessary, proportional, and determined on an arm's length basis.

The Tribunal acknowledged that GST compliance services are essential and could ordinarily fall under CIRP costs. However, it found the fees of ₹2,500 per month per state for filing nil returns (GST-3B and GSTR-1) to be exorbitant and unreasonable given the negligible work volume. The absence of formal CoC approval for these costs was also noted as a significant procedural lapse.

Final Outcome

The application was dismissed. The Tribunal held that while the services were related to the CIRP, the fees claimed did not meet the reasonability test mandated by the IBC framework and would result in an unnecessary depletion of the corporate debtor's assets. No payment was ordered.

Topics: Insolvency Resolution Process Costs, Professional Fees, GST Compliance