GST Demands Prior to IBC Resolution Plan Approval Quashed for Patanjali Foods:

HC holds that statutory dues prior to final NCLT approval stand extinguished; fresh GST action permitted only post 4 September 2019
HC Quashes GST Demands Against Patanjali Foods Prior to IBC Resolution Approval

GST Demands Prior to IBC Resolution Plan Approval Quashed for Patanjali Foods
Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. underwent corporate insolvency resolution proceedings before the NCLT, Mumbai. A resolution plan submitted by the Patanjali Consortium was approved, pursuant to which the company was taken over as a going concern on a clean slate basis and later renamed Patanjali Foods Limited.
Thereafter, CGST authorities issued a show cause notice dated 18 June 2024 and passed an order-in-original dated 21 January 2025 (with corrigendum dated 3 February 2025), raising GST demands for the period FY 2017-18 onwards. Patanjali Foods thereby challenged these demands before the Delhi High Court.
Issue Before HC: Whether GST demands for periods prior to approval of the resolution plan could survive after takeover of the corporate debtor on a clean slate basis, and what was the effective date of approval of the resolution plan under Section 31 of the IBC.
HC Decided: The Delhi High Court held that although the NCLT order dated 24 July 2019 recorded approval of the resolution plan, the approval was made subject to fulfilment of pending conditions, including clarification of funding sources. The final and unconditional approval was granted only by the later NCLT order dated 4 September 2019.
Relying on Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. and Bombay High Court in Patanjali Foods’ own cases, the Court held that all statutory dues, including GST, for periods prior to 4 September 2019 stood extinguished and could not be enforced against the petitioner.
Therefore, the impugned GST order raising demands for periods prior to 4 September 2019 was set aside. The tax authorities were granted liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice to be adjudicated in accordance with law.
To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below
About Author

Meetu Kumari
Content Manager
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2161My Recent Articles
- ITAT Grants Section 80P Relief to Souharda Society, Remands Demonetisation DepositsPremium
- ITAT Deletes Additions After Ex-Army Personnel Explains Bank Credits with EvidencePremium
- ITAT Allows Section 80P Deduction on Interest Earned from Co-operative Bank DepositsPremium
- ITAT Quashes Consequential Assessment After Section 263 Revision Order FailsPremium
- ITAT Restricts Addition to Commission on Accommodation Cash Deposit TransactionsPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








