THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX CGST DIVISION vs. SREENIVASA RAO RAVINUTHALA

C.A. No.-007882 - 2023Supreme Court2026 INSC 112114 October 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIAAuthor: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI11 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the Civil Appeal is barred by limitation. The Court clarified that for appeals to the Supreme Court under Section 62 of the IBC, the limitation period of 45 days, extendable by a further 15 days (total 60 days), commences from the date the order is pronounced by the NCLAT, not from the date of receipt of the certified copy. The Court referred to Rule 91 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, which mandates pronouncement of orders in open court, making that the date from which knowledge and limitation commence. The Court also applied Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, stating that only the "time requisite" for obtaining a copy (period between application and readiness) is excluded, and any period of inaction before applying for the copy cannot be excluded. In this case, the NCLAT order was pronounced on 02.08.2023. The Appellant applied for a copy on 06.09.2023 (35 days after pronouncement), and received it on 11.10.2023. Even with exclusion of the time taken to obtain the copy, the appeal filed on 21.11.2023 was beyond the 60-day outer limit. The preliminary objection was sustained, and the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (Appellant) filed a Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court against an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dated 02.08.2023. The NCLAT had confirmed a Resolution Plan approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for the Corporate Debtor, M/s Samyu Glass Private Limited. The Corporate Debtor faced excise recovery proceedings and initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The Appellant filed a proof of claim for Rs. 22,60,32,948/-. The NCLT approved a Resolution Plan where Rs. 1,34,657/- was allocated for excise arrears. The Appellant challenged this before the NCLAT, which upheld the Resolution Plan. The Civil Appeal was filed on 21.11.2023. Respondent No. 2 raised a preliminary objection regarding the limitation period for filing the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Civil Appeal filed by the Appellant is barred by limitation under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC)? Assessee's Contention (Appellant): The Appellant argued that the limitation period for filing an appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 62(1) of the IBC commences from the date of receipt of the order, not the date of the order itself. They contended that the certified copy of the NCLAT's order was received on 11.10.2023, and the appeal filed on 21.11.2023 was within the 45-day period and the condonable period. They relied on the wording "from the date of receipt of such order" in Section 62(1) and contrasted it with "the date the Order is made available" in Section 61 of the IBC. Revenue's Contention (Respondent No. 2): The Respondent argued that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period of 45 days and the condonable period of 15 days, making it a total of 60 days from the pronouncement of the order (02.08.2023). They contended that the appeal filed on 21.11.2023 was significantly delayed. Alternatively, even if the period for obtaining the certified copy was excluded, the appeal was still barred. They relied on the principles laid down in Sagufa Ahmed, V. Nagarajan, and CA Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 62,Section 61,Section 238,Section 238-A,Section 12(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
2026 INSC 1121 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7882 OF 2023 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, CGST DIVISION … APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SREENIVASA RAO RAVINUTHALA AND ANOTHER … RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

S.V.N. BHATTI, J.

1.

The Civil Appeal arises from the final Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2023, passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”), Chennai, in Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (INS) No. 346 of 2021, under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“the IBC”). The Civil Appeal was filed on 21.11.2023. Respondent No. 2 raises a preliminary objection on limitation.

2.

We have heard Mr. Saurav Roy, learned Counsel, for the Appellant, and Mr. Ritin Rai, learned Senior Counsel, for Respondent No.2 on the preliminary objection. The following circumstances are noted for appreciating Respondent No.2's preliminary objection. 2

3.

The Corporate Debtor/M/s Samyu Glass Private Limited, a

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 62

All 34 judgments and leading authorities on Section 62 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →