Supreme Court Dismisses Central Tax Department’s IBC Appeal as Time-Barred, Clarifies Certified Copy Delays Cannot Extend Section 62’s Strict and Mandatory Sixty-Day Filing Limit
Revenue Appeal Filed Beyond IBC’s Strict Sixty-Day Outer Limit Dismissed by Supreme Court, Which Excludes Only Time Actually Spent Obtaining the Certified Copy After Application
Facts
M/s Samyu Glass Private Limited entered the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) after excise-recovery proceedings involving the Central Tax Department. The Department lodged a claim of ₹22,60,32,948, while a separate proposal under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 contemplated ₹4,32,80,741. On 13 August 2021, the NCLT, Hyderabad, approved a resolution plan providing ₹1,34,657 towards the Department’s excise claim. The Department challenged that plan, but the NCLAT, Chennai, affirmed it on 2 August 2023. The Department applied for a certified copy on 6 September 2023, received it on 11 October 2023, and filed its Supreme Court appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), on 21 November 2023. A preliminary objection was raised that the appeal was filed beyond the absolute statutory deadline.
Issues
Whether limitation under Section 62 IBC commences when the NCLAT pronounces its order or only when an appellant physically receives a certified copy; how the exclusion for time requisite to obtain a copy under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 operates; whether the initial 45-day filing period and further 15-day condonable period could accommodate the Department’s appeal; and whether the merits of the approved resolution plan could be examined despite delay.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant Central Tax Department submitted that Section 62(1) expressly refers to filing within 45 days “from the date of receipt” of the NCLAT order. It contrasted that language with Section 61 IBC and invoked analogous appellate provisions under the Companies Act, 2013. Since the certified copy was received only on 11 October 2023, the Department contended that its appeal filed on 21 November 2023—41 days later—was within the primary limitation period. The Department urged the Court not to count time before the certified copy became available against it.
Respondent’s Arguments
Respondent No. 2 objected that the IBC is a self-contained, time-sensitive appellate code. The NCLAT order had been pronounced on 2 August 2023; the Department waited 35 days before applying for its certified copy. Even allowing exclusion of the period from the copy application on 6 September until its delivery on 11 October 2023, the appeal filed on 21 November exceeded the aggregate 60 days permitted under Section 62. The respondent submitted that receipt of a certified copy cannot be used to restart limitation indefinitely and that the Court lacked jurisdiction to condone the excess delay.
Analysis of the Law
Section 62 IBC provides 45 days to appeal from an NCLAT order and permits, on sufficient cause, a further extension not exceeding 15 days; the 60-day outer limit is jurisdictional. Section 238-A imports the Limitation Act only insofar as consistent with the IBC. Under Section 12(2), the time genuinely required to obtain a certified copy after applying for it is excluded, but any earlier period of inaction is not. Rule 91 of the NCLAT Rules treats notified pronouncement, including reading the operative portion in open court, as effective notice. The Supreme Court interpreted “receipt” in this statutory setting as not enabling a litigant to postpone the start of limitation until a certified copy is collected at its convenience. Exclusion of time and discretionary condonation remain distinct concepts.
Precedent Analysis
In Sagufa Ahmed v. Upper Assam Plywood Products, (2021) 2 SCC 317, the Court explained the difference between a prescribed limitation period and a separate condonable window; its Companies Act setting involved a statutory entitlement to a free certified copy. V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power, (2022) 2 SCC 244, emphasised the IBC’s self-contained limitation scheme, diligence in obtaining certified copies and the restricted operation of Section 12(2). CA Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary v. Adani Infrastructure and Developers, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1097, reaffirmed the inflexible maximum 45-plus-15-day period for Supreme Court appeals under Section 62 and the inability of procedural rules to enlarge it.
Court’s Reasoning
Justices S. V. N. Bhatti and N. V. Anjaria held that limitation began upon the NCLAT’s pronouncement on 2 August 2023. The 35 days preceding the Department’s application on 6 September were attributable to its own inaction and could not be excluded. The next 35 days, during which the Registry processed the copy until 11 October, qualified for exclusion under Section 12(2). Thereafter, the Department consumed another 41 days before filing on 21 November. The actionable time was therefore 35 plus 41, or 76 days—16 days beyond Section 62’s 60-day absolute ceiling. The primary 45-day period, after permissible exclusion, ended on 21 October 2023; the maximum condonable period ended on 5 November 2023. Treating physical receipt as a fresh starting point would make the statutory limit indefinite and render Section 12(2) superfluous.
Conclusion
On 14 October 2026, the Supreme Court sustained the preliminary limitation objection and dismissed Civil Appeal No. 7882 of 2023 as time-barred, without costs. Pending applications were disposed of. The Court did not determine the correctness of the NCLT-approved resolution plan, the NCLAT’s decision on excise claims or the underlying tax liability. The judgment underscores that IBC appellants must act promptly after pronouncement and cannot overcome the statutory outer limit by delaying their certified-copy application.
Case: The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST Division v. Sreenivasa Rao Ravinuthala & Anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 7882 of 2023; 2026 INSC 1121
Judge: Justices S. V. N. Bhatti and N. V. Anjaria
Date: 14 October 2026
Result: Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation under Section 62 IBC; preliminary objection sustained; no costs.
