Bombay High Court
Reliance Naval And Engineering Ltd vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 19 August, 2025
Author: B. P. Colabawalla
Bench: B. P. Colabawalla
2025:BHC-OS:13908-DB
5.wp(l).31329.2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.31329 OF 2024
Swan Defence and Heavy Industries Limited .. Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle 6(3) & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr.Sham V. Walve a/w Abhishek Khandelwal, Bhavik
Digitally
signed by
UTKARSH
Chheda, Advocates for the Petitioner.
UTKARSH KAKASAHEB
KAKASAHEB BHALERAO
BHALERAO Date:
2025.08.21
11:42:22 Mr.J. S. Saluja (through V.C.), Advocate for the
+0530
Respondents.
CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA &
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
DATE : AUGUST 19, 2025
P. C.
1. At the outset, the Petitioner submits that after the above
Writ Petition was filed, the name of the Petitioner Company was
changed from "Reliance Naval and Engineering Limited" to "Swan
Defence and Heavy Industries Limited". He, therefore, sought leave to
carry out the necessary amendment in the cause title of the Petition.
AUGUST 19, 2025
Utkarsh
5.wp(l).31329.2024.doc
2. Considering that this is a formal amendment, the Petitioner
is permitted to carry out aforesaid amendment. The amendment shall
be carried out forthwith in front of the Associate. Re-verification is
dispensed with.
3. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the
parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.
4. The above Writ Petition challenges the re-assessment
initiated vide Notice dated 29th August 2024 issued by Respondent No.1
under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for
the A.Y.2018-19, which is the year under consideration.
5. The short point on which the above order and the notice are
impugned is that conducting such proceedings against the Petitioner
would be an academic exercise since no demand can be raised upon the
Petitioner for A.Y.2018-19. This is for the simple reason that prior to
initiation of the impugned proceedings, a Resolution Plan came to be
approved by the NCLT, Ahmedabad Bench vide its order dated 23rd
December 2022. The Resolution Plan submitted by one 'Hazel
Mercantile Ltd' for the Petitioner came to be approved by the NCLT as
AUGUST 19, 2025
Utkarsh
5.wp(l).31329.2024.doc
per Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (for short "the
IBC"). A combined reading of paragraph Nos.23 and 24 of the NCLT
order would show that all past claims would stand extinguished. In fact,
the NCLT order, while noting the same, has made a reference to the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Mishra &
Sons Pvt Ltd V/S Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company
Ltd & Ors. [(2021) 9 SCC 657] in the context of statutory dues.
6. The Petitioner's argument is that once a Resolution Plan
has been approved in accordance with the provisions of the IBC, the
dues of the Income Tax Department would have to be governed by what
is stated in the Resolution Plan approved by the NCLT. The Petitioner
argues that the facts relating to the NCLT order were brought to the
notice of the Assessing Officer vide its letter dated 16 th August 2024 in
response to the Show Cause Notice issued on 12 th August 2024 under
Section 148A(b) of the Act. Despite having pointed out the facts to the
Assessing Officer, the order dated 28 th August 2024 under Section
148A(d) of the Act came to be passed holding that the Petitioner's case is
fit for issuance of Notice under Section 148 of the Act. The Assessing
Officer relied on a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court
in the case of Dishnet Wireless Ltd V/S Assistant Commissioner
AUGUST 19, 2025
Utkarsh
5.wp(l).31329.2024.doc
of Income-tax (OSD) [(2022) 139 taxmann.com 493
(Madras)] to hold that the provisions of IBC cannot be interpreted in
a manner which is inconsistent with any other law for the time being in
force and cannot be pressed into service to dilute the rights of the
Income Tax Department.
7. In this backdrop, the issue to be decided is that whether the
Income Tax Department could have proceeded against the Petitioner
after approval of the Resolution Plan by the NCLT for a period prior to
approval of such plan. This issue came up for consideration before this
Court in Petitioner's own case viz Swan Defence and Heavy
Industries Ltd V/S Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Central Circle 6(3) & Ors (in Writ Petition (L) No.22088 of
2025) for a different assessment year. In that case, following the ratio
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Mishra &
Sons Pvt Ltd V/S. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company
Ltd & Ors. [(2021) 9 SCC 657], the impugned re-assessment
proceedings were set aside. The judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Madras High Court in Dishnet Wireless Ltd (supra), and which is relied
upon by the Department, was also distinguished in paragraph No.6 of
AUGUST 19, 2025
Utkarsh
5.wp(l).31329.2024.doc
Swan Defence (supra). As such, the present case is squarely covered by
the judgment in Swan Defence (supra).
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the above Petition is
allowed and the impugned notice dated 29 th August 2024 issued under
Section 148 of the Act and any consequential orders/notices for the
A.Y.2018-19 are hereby quashed and set aside.
9. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms and the Writ
Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.
10. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/
Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by
fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]
AUGUST 19, 2025
Utkarsh
