Bombay High Court
STATE TAX OFFICERversusPatanjali Foods Ltd Formerly Knowns as Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable; the petitioners must file an appeal under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Summary
The State Tax Officer of Gujarat filed a writ petition challenging an interlocutory order dated 8‑Nov‑2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) that upheld the extinguishment of pre‑resolution‑plan tax claims of Patanjali Foods Ltd. The petitioners argued that the NCLT acted without jurisdiction and relied on the Supreme Court decision in S. Rajendra v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami) to support their claim. The High Court held that the NCLT was exercising jurisdiction conferred by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and that the Supreme Court precedent was inapplicable because it dealt with a conflict between two special statutes, not a state tax claim. Consequently, the Court found no basis to entertain the writ and directed the petitioners to pursue the statutory appeal under Section 61 of the IBC. No merits of the tax claim were examined.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable notwithstanding the availability of a statutory appeal under Section 61 of the IBC.
- Whether the NCLT acted without jurisdiction in extinguishing pre‑resolution‑plan tax claims.
- Whether the Supreme Court decision in S. Rajendra v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami) is applicable to the present dispute.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Insolvency
- Bankruptcy
- NCLT jurisdiction
- Writ petition
- Section 61 IBC
- State tax
- Corporate insolvency resolution
- Extinguishment of claims
Judgment
varsha 11-wp-12638-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12638 Of 2026
State Tax Officer .. Petitioner
V/S.
Patanjali Foods Ltd Formerly .. Respondent
Knowns as Ruchi Soya Industries
Ltd
-------------------
Mr. Lakshyaved R. Odhekar with Omkar Mhasde and Sujen Shaikh, for the
petitioner.
--------------------
VARSHA CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
DEEPAK
GAIKWAD SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
Digitally signed by
VARSHA DEEPAK
GAIKWAD
Date: 2026.10.01
19:53:06 +0530
DATE : 1ST OCTOBER 2026.
PC:
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This petition is filed by the State tax officer and the assistant
Commissioner of State Tax, Gujarat in order to assail order dated
8/11/2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai,
(NCLT) in interlocutory applications in respect of certain statutory
notices issued by the petitioners.
3. The petitioners are particularly aggrieved by the observations
made in paragraphs 6.4 and 6.5 of the impugned order.
4. At the outset, we put a query to the learned counsel for the
petitioners as to why this writ petition should be entertained in the
1 of 4
varsha 11-wp-12638-2026.doc
face of the statutory remedy of appeal available under Section 61 of
the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) for filing an appeal
before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
present writ could be maintained on the ground that the impugned
order, in so far as the portions with which the petitioners are
aggrieved, can be said to be without jurisdiction and as per settled law
in such a situation the writ court can certainly exercise jurisdiction to
entertain the writ petition.
6. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of 'S. Rajendra v.s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami
Prohibition and Ors')1 .
7. We have perused the relevant portion of the impugned order and
we find that the NCLT has proceeded on the basis of the settled
position of law that once the resolution plan is approved, claims
pertaining to the period prior to the approval of the resolution plan
stand extinguished. Further observations have been made in the
impugned order with which the petitioners are aggrieved.
8. But, we are of the opinion that the adverse observations made by
the NCLT in the impugned order are based upon the jurisdiction
available to the NCLT under the provisions of the IBC.
9. According to us, reliance placed on the judgment of Supreme
Court in the case of 'S. Rajendra v.s Deputy Commissioner of Income
Tax (Benami Prohibition and Ors') (supra) is misplaced, for the reason
1 (2026) 5 SCC 563
2 of 4
varsha 11-wp-12638-2026.doc
that in the said case the Supreme Court was considering a conflict
between two special statutes i.e. the IBC and the Prohibition of Benami
Property Transactions Act, 1988 (Benami Act). While considering the
two special statutes, the Supreme Court's found that the provisions of
the IBC could not be expansively construed to even trench upon the
other field exclusively covered by another special statute.
10. We find that the parallel sought to be drawn by the learned
counsel for the petitioners in the present case cannot be accepted,
simply for the reason that in the present case, the petitioners are
seeking to raise statutory claims based on the State legislation
pertaining to the State of Gujarat. If the contention raised on behalf of
the petitioners is accepted then such authorities, who can raise claims
pertaining to State taxes would seek to avoid the effect of IBC and the
procedure contemplated under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution
Process by claiming that since there is a conflict between IBC and such
State legislation and that there is a hierarchy of challenges provided
under the State legislation, the settled position of law with regard to
extinguishment of all such claims upon approval of the resolution plan
would collapse. This cannot be countenanced.
11. We are of the opinion that petitioners cannot rely upon the
aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of ' S. Rajendra v.s
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition and Ors')
(supra) to contend that the impugned order was rendered without
jurisdiction.
12. Hence, no ground is made out for entertaining the present
petition.
3 of 4
varsha 11-wp-12638-2026.doc
13. However, the petitioners can take recourse to the statutory
remedy of filing an appeal under Section 61 of the IBC, strictly in
accordance with law.
14. We make no observations with regard to the merits of the matter.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
4 of 4
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.