Bombay High Court
Vishalsing Ravindrasing Rajput vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr The ... on 17 November, 2025
Author: B. P. Colabawalla
Bench: B. P. Colabawalla
2025:BHC-OS:21442-DB
6.wp(l).34996.2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.34996 OF 2025
V Hotels Limited .. Petitioner
Versus
The National Faceless Assessment Centre,
Delhi & Ors. .. Respondents
UTKARSH
KAKASAHEB Mr. Prakash Shah, Senior Advocate a/w Jas Sanghavi,
BHALERAO
Suyog Bhave, Linzy Sharan i/b PDS Legal, Advocates for
Digitally signed by
UTKARSH
KAKASAHEB the Petitioner.
BHALERAO
Date: 2025.11.19
13:41:47 +0530
Mr. Vipul Bajpayee, Advocate for the Revenue/Respondents.
CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA &
AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.
DATE : NOVEMBER 17, 2025
P. C.
1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of
parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.
2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the Petitioner is challenging the Notice dated 24 th June 2025
issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the
Act") and Notice dated 26th September 2025 issued under Section
NOVEMBER 17, 2025
Utkarsh
6.wp(l).34996.2025.doc
142(1) of the Act, both issued by Respondent No.1, for the A.Y. 2024-25
(F.Y.2023-24).
3. It is contended by the Petitioner that prior to initiation of
the impugned assessment proceedings, the NCLT, Mumbai Bench, vide
its order dated 31st May 2019, admitted an application filed by Asset
Reconstruction Company (India) Limited under Section 7 of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short "IBC") and declared a
moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC and appointed the Resolution
Professional.
4. In an appeal filed against the order dated 31 st May 2019, the
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (the NCLAT), vide its order
dated 11th December 2019 set aside the said order dated 31 st May 2019.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court, vide its order and judgment dated
1st August 2022, was pleased to set aside the order dated 11 th December
2019 of NCLAT and restored the order dated 31 st May 2019 passed by
the learned NCLT.
NOVEMBER 17, 2025
Utkarsh
6.wp(l).34996.2025.doc
6. In view of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the CIRP
proceedings continued and the NCLT, vide its order dated 26 th April
2024, approved the Resolution Plan of Macrotech Developers Limited
[the Resolution Applicant] in accordance with the provisions of Section
31 of the IBC.
7. It is the Petitioner's case that under the Resolution Plan of
Macrotech Developers Limited approved by the NCLT, any claim and/or
liability pertaining to the period prior to the approval of the Resolution
Plan by NCLT, i.e. prior to 26 th April 2024, stood extinguished and/or
settled in terms of the Resolution Plan. Consequently, all proceedings,
suits, claims, etc. in connection with the corporate debtor, i.e. the
Petitioner, or its affairs, in relation to any period prior to the approval of
the Resolution Plan, stood extinguished.
8. After the approval of the Resolution Plan by the NCLT, in
order to comply with the provisions of Section 139(1) of the Act and in
view of not being treated as a defaulter, the Board of Directors
appointed by Macrotech Developers Limited had filed the return of
income for the Petitioner for A.Y.2024-25 (Financial Year 2023-24).
NOVEMBER 17, 2025
Utkarsh
6.wp(l).34996.2025.doc
9. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 has issued the impugned
notices dated 24th June 2025 under Section 143(2) of the Act and 26 th
September 2025 under Section 142(1) of the Act.
10. Accordingly, it is contended by the Petitioner that the
impugned notices are liable to be quashed and set aside, as being
entirely without jurisdiction and contrary to law declared by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. & Ors. [(2021)
9 SCC 657], Vaibhav Goel & Anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Income Tax & Anr. [(2025) 255 Company Cases 266 (SC)] and
orders dated 06th August 2025 passed in Petitioner's own case for
A.Y.2020-21 and A.Y.2021-22 in Writ Petition (L) Nos.22777 of 2025
and Writ Petition (L) No.22834 of 2025, respectively.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
12. The issue to be decided is whether the notices impugned
herein are sustainable in law in light of the approval of the Resolution
Plan by the NCLT, when such notices are issued for a period prior to the
approval of such Plan.
NOVEMBER 17, 2025
Utkarsh
6.wp(l).34996.2025.doc
13. It is not in dispute that CIRP proceedings were initiated
against the Petitioner by the NCLT on 31 st May 2019, and that the said
order was later restored by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 1 st August
2022. It is further undisputed that the NCLT, by its order dated 26 th
April 2024, approved the Resolution Plan submitted by Macrotech
Developers Limited.
14. Once a Resolution Plan is approved by the Adjudicating
Authority, the said Plan becomes binding on the corporate debtor and
all stakeholders, including the Central and State Governments or any
local authority, in respect of statutory dues. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has categorically held
that all claims which are not part of the approved Resolution Plan stand
extinguished, and no person is entitled to initiate or continue any
proceedings in respect thereof.
15. We may also observe that in the Petitioner's own case, this
Court, vide its orders dated 6th August 2025, has already taken a similar
view. In that matter, reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections
148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 of the Act for A.Y. 2020-21 were quashed on
NOVEMBER 17, 2025
Utkarsh
6.wp(l).34996.2025.doc
the ground that the alleged tax liability pertained to a period prior to the
approval of the Resolution Plan dated 26 th April 2024. This Court held
that allowing the Department to pursue reassessment proceedings for a
period prior to the approval of the Resolution Plan would defeat the
object of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, as the successful
Resolution Applicant is entitled to revive the corporate debtor on a clean
slate basis.
16. The principle laid down in the said judgment squarely
applies to the present proceedings, since, the impugned notices under
Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act seeks information for the period
prior to the approval of the Resolution Plan. Therefore, the issue raised
herein is no longer res integra.
17. In the present case, the relevant assessment year is
A.Y.2024-25, corresponding to the F.Y.2023-24. The Resolution Plan
came to be approved on 26 th April 2024. Consequently, any liability or
proceeding arising out of or relating to a period prior to 26 th April 2024,
would necessarily stand extinguished upon approval of the Resolution
Plan.
NOVEMBER 17, 2025
Utkarsh
6.wp(l).34996.2025.doc
18. The Respondents had submitted their claims in respect of
Income tax liability pertaining to the A.Y.2018-19 and A.Y.2019-20, as is
evident from the list of Operational Creditors (Government dues)
submitted by the Resolution Professional to the NCLT on 06 th March
2024. However, no claim was filed for the Assessment Year under
consideration. In absence of any specific claim for the year under
consideration, any subsequent issuance of notice under Section 143(2)
or 142(1) of the Act, seeking to scrutinize or assess income for a period
forming part of the pre-resolution period, is contrary to the law declared
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons
Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Vaibhav Goel & Anr. (supra) and by this Court in the
Petitioner's own case.
19. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that
the impugned notice dated 24th June 2025 issued under Section 143(2)
of the Act and the Notice dated 26 th September 2025 issued under
Section 142(1) of the Act are unsustainable in law and without
jurisdiction, as they seek to reopen or continue proceedings in respect of
a period which stood extinguished by virtue of the Resolution Plan
approved by the NCLT on 26th April 2024.
NOVEMBER 17, 2025
Utkarsh
6.wp(l).34996.2025.doc
20. Accordingly, the above Writ Petition is allowed and the
impugned Notice dated 24th June 2025 issued under Section 143(2) of
the Act and the Notice dated 26 th September 2025 issued under Section
142(1) of the Act and any consequential orders/notices are hereby
quashed and set aside.
21. 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.
22. 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.
[AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]
NOVEMBER 17, 2025
Utkarsh
