Judicial Insight
Back to feed
IndiaCivil

The Assistant Commissioner Of Central ... vs Sreenivasa Rao Ravinuthala

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
Oct 14, 2026
Citation
2026 INSC 1121
Judges
S.V.N. Bhatti, N.V. Anjaria

AI breakdown

  • The tax department appealed a resolution plan late, claiming it was within time based on when they received the order.
  • The Supreme Court dismissed their appeal, stating it was filed beyond the 60-day limit allowed under the IBC.
  • The court held that the appeal period starts from the decision date, excluding time to get the order, but was still exceeded.

Outcome

The Civil Appeal stands dismissed as barred by limitation.

Taken from the judgment's conclusion. Check the full text for the exact order.

Parties

  • Applicant

    The Assistant Commissioner Of Central ...

  • Respondent

    Sreenivasa Rao Ravinuthala

Judgment text (excerpt)
The Assistant Commissioner Of Central ... vs Sreenivasa Rao Ravinuthala on 14 October, 2026 2026 INSC 1121 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) JUDGMENT 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 Signature Not Verified objection. The following circumstances are noted for appreciating Respondent Digitally signed by SNEHA DAS Date: 2026.10.14 16:48:42 IST Reason: No.2's preliminary objection. 1 3. The Corporate Debtor/M/s Samyu Glass Private Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, manufactured high-quality glass containers and was registered as an Export Oriented Unit. Between 2013 and 2017, the Central Excise and Service Tax Department initiated multiple excise recovery proceedings against the Corporate Debtor. Around November/December 2016, the Corporate Debtor stopped its manufacturing activity. The Corporate Debtor subjected the demands raised by the Appellant to challenge before the Customs, Excise and Service …
Read the full judgmentpowered by IKanoon

Source: Indian Kanoon (indiankanoon.org). Indian court judgments are public records; the summary and translations are AI-generated.