Patanjali Foods rejects reports of Centre's notice to Ayurved division: ‘Examining appropriate action'
Patanjali Foods Ltd on Sunday junked reports of Patanjali Ayurved Limited receiving notice from the Ministry of Corporate affairs, saying it has not received any communication.
In a stock exchange filing, Patanjali Foods said its sister concern Patanjali Ayurved is not being investigated by the Centre.
'Pursuant to Regulation 30(11) of the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, based on confirmation from Patanjali Ayurved Limited, we may clarify that Patanjali Ayurved Limited has not received any communication from Ministry of Corporate Affairs('MCA') for the proposed investigation by MCA as appearing in mainstream media,' the filing noted.
Patanjali Ayurved is exploring legal options to address the issue, the company said.
'Their legal counsels are examining appropriate action in this regard,' Patanjali Foods said.
In a report on May 30, Bloomberg reported that yoga guru Baba Ramdev's company Patanjali Ayurved is under the scrutiny of Centre due to 'suspicious' activities.
The Centre has asked Patanjali Ayurved to explain some transactions deemed suspicious, according to the report quoting people familiar with the matter.
As per the report quoting unnamed sources, the Union Ministry of Corporate Affairs sent a notice to the company after the federal economic intelligence wing found transactions it said was abnormal and dubious.
The sources quoted by Bloomberg did not however reveal the exact amount of transactions involved in the case. They cited early stages of investigation as the reason.
The company will have about two months to respond to the notice, according to the report. The corporate affairs ministry will further confirm if the company committed any corporate governance breaches and fund diversion.
While Patanjali Ayurved is a closely held company, its unit Patanjali Foods Ltd. is publicly traded.
Patanjali's face, Yoga Guru Ramdev, found himself in a soup earlier this year regarding some controversial comments.
On May 2, Ramdev gave an undertaking in the Delhi High Court saying he will not issue any disparaging statement or publish on social media, posts similar to his "sharbat jihad" remark against Hamdard's Rooh Afza.
A similar undertaking was also tendered by Ramdev's Patanjali Foods Ltd.
The court passed the order while dealing with a lawsuit by Hamdard National Foundation India against Ramdev and his Patanjali Foods Ltd over the controversial remarks.
Hamdard claimed while promoting Patanjali's "gulab sharbat", Ramdev alleged the money earned from Hamdard's Rooh Afza was used to build madrasas and mosques.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
12 hours ago
- Mint
Setback to Patanjali Ayurved, Allahabad High Court dismisses ₹273.5 crore GST penalty appeal — Details here
The Allahabad High Court rejected Patanjali Ayurved Limited's plea challenging the ₹ 273.50 crore goods and service tax (GST) penalty, PTI reported on Tuesday, 3 June 2025. The high court bench comprising Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit dismissed Patanjali's argument that such cases are made up of criminal liability and can be imposed only after a criminal trial. 'After detailed analysis, it is clear that the proceeding under Section 122 of the CGST Act is to be adjudicated by the adjudicating officer and is not required to undergo prosecution,' said the judicial bench, as per the report. The court observed that the tax authorities can impose penalties on firms under Section 122 of the GST Act through civil proceedings without requiring criminal court trials. Patanjali Ayurved's sister concern, Patanjali Foods, even though a separate entity, is listed in the Indian stock market. Shares of Patanjali Foods were trading 0.44 per cent lower at ₹ 1,690.20 during Tuesday's stock market session, compared to ₹ 1,697.65 in the previous market close. The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Ghaziabad, issued a show cause notice to Patanjali Ayurved on 19 April 2024 proposing a penalty of ₹ 273.51 crore under various sections of the GST Act, reported the news agency. Later, the DGGI dropped tax demands under Section 74 in an order dated 10 January 2025. The department reportedly found that the quantities sold for all commodities were more than those purchased from the suppliers. 'For all the commodities, the quantities sold were always more than the quantities purchased from the suppliers, thereby making the observation that all the ITC which was availed in the impugned goods was further passed on by the petitioner,' the DGGI said. Despite dropping the tax demand, the tax authorities decided to continue with the penalty proceedings under Section 122, prompting Patanjali to challenge the order in the high court. Patanjali Ayurved operates three manufacturing units at Haridwar, Sonipat, and Ahmednagar. The company reportedly was under investigation following information received by authorities about suspicious transactions with high input tax credit (ITC) utilisation. The investigation reportedly found that Patanjali was 'acting as a main person' involved in circular trading of tax invoices on paper without supplying actual goods. According to an earlier Mint report, Patanjali Foods Ltd. rejected reports that Patanjali Ayurved Limited received notice from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs on Sunday, 1 June 2025. It also said that Patanjali Ayurved is not being investigated by the authorities.
Mint
13 hours ago
- Mint
Setback to Patanjali Ayurved, Allahabad High Court dismisses ₹273.5 crore GST penalty appeal — Details here
The Allahabad High Court rejected Patanjali Ayurved Limited's plea challenging the ₹ 273.50 crore goods and service tax (GST) penalty, reported the news agency PTI on Tuesday, 3 June 2025. The high court bench comprising Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit dismissed Patanjali's appeal, citing that such cases are made up of criminal liability and can be imposed only after a criminal trial. 'After detailed analysis, it is clear that the proceeding under Section 122 of the CGST Act is to be adjudicated by the adjudicating officer and is not required to undergo prosecution,' said the judicial bench, cited the news agency. The tax authorities can impose penalties on firms under Section 122 of the GST Act through civil proceedings without requiring criminal court trials, according to the report, citing the judicial bench. Patanjali Ayurved's sister concern firm, Patanjali Foods, even though being a separate entity, is listed in the Indian stock market. Shares of Patanjali Foods were trading 0.44 per cent lower at ₹ 1,690.20 during Tuesday's stock market session, compared to ₹ 1,697.65 in the previous market close. The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Ghaziabad, issued a show cause notice to Patanjali Ayurved on 19 April 2024 proposing a penalty of ₹ 273.51 crore under sections of the GST Act, reported the news agency. Later, DGGI dropped tax demands under Section 74 in an order dated 10 January 2025. The department reportedly found that the quantities sold for all commodities were more than those purchased from the suppliers. 'For all the commodities, the quantities sold were always more than the quantities purchased from the suppliers, thereby making the observation that all the ITC which was availed in the impugned goods was further passed on by the petitioner,' cited the news agency. Despite dropping the tax demand, the tax authorities decided to continue with the penalty proceedings under Section 122, prompting Patanjali to challenge the order in the high court. Patanjali Ayurved operates three manufacturing units at Haridwar, Sonipat, and Ahmednagar. The company reportedly was under investigation following information received by authorities about suspicious transactions with high input tax credit (ITC) utilisation. The investigation reportedly found that Patanjali was 'acting as a main person' who was involved in circular trading of tax invoices on paper without supplying actual goods. According to an earlier Mint report, Patanjali Foods Ltd. rejected reports that Patanjali Ayurved Limited received notice from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) on Sunday, 1 June 2025. They also said that Patanjali Ayurved is not being investigated by the Centre. 'We may clarify that Patanjali Ayurved Limited has not received any communication from Ministry of Corporate Affairs('MCA') for the proposed investigation by MCA as appearing in mainstream media,' said the company in an official filing.
New Indian Express
15 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Right to trade cannot impede on right to life: Madras HC upholds Tamil Nadu's real money gaming regulations
The bench held that the right to conduct trade enshrined in Article 19(1)(g), being a vital fundamental right, cannot be used to deter the people's right to life under Article 21. The petitions were filed by online gaming platforms including Play Games 24x7 Private Limited, Head Digital Works Private Limited, Junglee Games India Private Limited. These companies had challenged the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Activity (Real Money Games) Regulations, 2025. The main contentions were against the bar on under 18 minors from playing the games, mandatory know your client (KYC) registration with Aadhaar number, playing RMGs during blank hours- from 12 am to 5 am and the compulsory pop-up caution alerts for every thirty minutes after the initial one hour and setting of time bound monetary limits. They also stated the state's act and regulations were repugnant with the Information Technology Act of the Centre. Pointing to the reports on the negative effects of the online RMGs on the physical, mental and financial aspects of a player who in essence is not playing with another human but a pre-programmed computer, the bench held that it would be only fair to ensure the right to life under Article 21 of the player is protected which also encompasses his right to health. It negated the contention of the online gaming firms that the restrictions of blank hours and age limit are paternalistic in nature.
