9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondents. 2. The petitioner in both these cases is one M/s. Patanjali Foods Limited. It was earlier known as "Ruchi Soya Industries Limited". The petitioner, on account of its financial difficulties, had been subjected to insolvency proceedings under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. 3. In the course of these proceedings, a resolution plan was prepared by the committee of creditors and the same was approved by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, by an order dated 04.09.2019. The resolution plan which had been approved by the NCLT provided that all dues of the creditors, including the dues of the State were to be adjusted out of amounts paid by the successful applicants in the resolution process. 4. The order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er as a common issue arises in both the cases. 8. The main contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is not liable to pay any of the aforesaid amounts in view of the order of the National Company law Tribunal dated 04.09.2019. It is contended that the resolution plan, which was approved by the NCLT, on 04.09.2019, provided for payment of Rs. 25 crores towards clearing all the statutory dues, including claims by all Government authorities. Upon approval of this offer, the petitioner would not be liable to clear any of such statutory duties set out in the scheme. 9. The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes would submit that the order of NCLT would not be binding upon the State of A.P as no notice of any nature was issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d other stakeholders. On the date of approval of resolution plan by the adjudicating authority, all such claims, which are not a part of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan. 11. In the circumstances, it must be held that the liability of the petitioner, arising out of the AP VAT Act or the GST Act stands extinguished to the extent of its liability up to 4th September, 2019. 12. The contention of the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes that the order of NCLT is not binding on the State of Andhra Pradesh in view of Section 88 of the GST Act would have to be negatived in as much as Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
