APHC010628722009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 22967/2009 Between: M/s. Pathanjali Foods Limited, ...PETITIONER AND The Assistant Commissioner Ct Ltu and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KARTHIK RAMANA PUTTAMREDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP) 2. GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE 3. SURIBABU S(SPL SC FOR CT AP) The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner, which was called as M/s. Ruchi Infrastructure Limited, is a manufacturer of refined oils and vanaspathi. In view of the establishment of a refinery in East Godavari District, the petitioner was granted a tax exemption for a sum of Rs.8,77,49,650/-. This incentive was availed during the period 25.03.2000 to 24.03.2007. 2 RRR,J & Dr.KMR,J W.P.No.22967 of 2009 2. Certain disputes arose as to the eligibility of the petitioner to the said exemption of tax, which is related in W.P.No.22967 of 2009, being filed before this Court. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, the petitioner underwent corporate insolvency resolution process, under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. This process culminated in the order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, dated 04.09.2019. This Order was challenged before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, by way of Appeal No.1068 of 2019 and came to be dismissed on 09.12.2019. 3. The resolution plan, submitted under this process and approved by the National Company Law Tribunal required the petitioner company to pay a certain amount of money towards clearance of liabilities under the various tax laws. It is stated that the said amounts have been paid. 4. Sri Karthika Ramana Puttamreddy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would now contend that, the issue of whether the petitioner was entitled to be exemption granted earlier or not has now become an academic issue. He would submit that, even if it was held against the petitioner, no further liability can be fastened on the petitioner in view of the order of the National Company Law Tribunal, dated 04.09.2019. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon an earlier judgment of this Court, dated 11.09.2024, in W.P.No.28529 of 2023. 3 RRR,J & Dr.KMR,J W.P.No.22967 of 2009 6. This Court, after considering the contentions of the learned Government Pleader held as follows in paragraph 10 of the said judgment: “10. The question of extinguishment of liability of corporate which have undergone the CIRP process came to be considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company 1 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court after an elaborate review of the provisions of law had concluded in the following manner: 102.1. That once a resolution plan is duly approved by the adjudicating authority under sub-section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and 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.” 7. In view of the aforesaid judgment and in view of the fact that the period for which tax is being demanded, falls prior to 04.09.2019, no further liability would arise for the petitioner and the demand raised against the petitioner, which is a subject matter of the present Writ Petition is set aside. 8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _______________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J KPV 1 (2021) 9 SCC 657 4 RRR,J & Dr.KMR,J W.P.No.22967 of 2009 181 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No:22967 of 2009 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 02.04.2025 KPV