JUDGMENT : MAUNA M. BHATT, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. B.S. Soparkar for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan G. Sanghani for the respondent. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent. 3. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the notices dated 17.04.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and order dated 28.07.2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act for Assessment Year 2016-17. 4. The brief facts are as under: 4.1. The petitioner is a company incorporated under provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2016-17 on 17.10.2016 declaring total loss of Rs.77,40,58,498/-. 4.2. The petitioner- company was subjected to insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short ‘the Code’) wherein a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (for short ‘the CIRP’) was initiated vide order dated 05.02.2020 pursuant to an application made by Bank of India before the Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (for short ‘the NCLT’). 4.3. The NCLT thereafter appointed an Interim Resolution Professional who made a public announcement inviting claims from various creditors of the petitioner. In response thereto, among other claims, the Interim Resolution Professional received a claim of Rs. 1,26,80,855/- from the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot which was verified and admitted in its entirety. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot was thus classified as an Operational Creditor in accordance with provisions of the Code and this was the only claim received from the Income Tax Department pursuant to the public announcement. 4.4. It is further the case of the petitioner that under the CIRP, the Resolution Plan of one M/s. Zaveri & CO. Private Limited for the revival of the petitioner-company was approved by the Tribunal on 14.10.2021 under Section 30(6) of the Code. 4.5. The said Resolution Plan provided for payment of total amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the Operational Creditors on a pro-rata basis against their admitted claims of Rs.59,44,51,751/-. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax has thus been paid Rs.21,332/- on pro-rata basis in accordance with the Resolution Plan. 4.6. 4.5. The said Resolution Plan provided for payment of total amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the Operational Creditors on a pro-rata basis against their admitted claims of Rs.59,44,51,751/-. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax has thus been paid Rs.21,332/- on pro-rata basis in accordance with the Resolution Plan. 4.6. Subsequent to approval of plan, the respondent issued notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 17.04.2021 in the name of Jyoti Power Corporation Private Limited asking the petitioner to file a return of income of AY 2016-17. The Petitioner challenged the jurisdiction to issue the notice as well as validity of the same before this Court vide Special Civil Application No. 6165 of 2022. Eventually, the said petition was disposed off vide order dated 05.05.2022 in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Ashish Agarwal. 4.7. Thereafter on 26.05.2022, the petitioner received a notice in consequence to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Ashish Agarwal (Supra) along with reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment. 4.8. The petitioner filed his objections vide letter dated 04.06.2022 seeking to drop the proceedings. 4.9. Thereafter, on 28.07.2022, the respondent has passed the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act rejecting the objections of the petitioner. The respondent has also issued the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act on 30.07.2022. 4.10. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned notices dated 17.04.2021 and 30.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act as well as the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) dated 28.07.2022, the petitioner has preferred this petition. 5.1. Learned advocate Mr. B.S. Soparkar for the petitioner submitted that in view of the settled legal position and in view of resolution plan being approved by order dated 14.10.2021, all past dues of the Income Tax Department got extinguished and therefore, impugned notices dated 17.04.2021 and 30.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act for revising the assessment under Section 263 of the Act for Assessment Year 2016-17 deserves to be quashed and set aside. All claims of the Income Tax Department stand extinguished by virtue of operation of law and the respondent now cannot have any right or claim against the petitioner with respect to dues prior to the insolvency commencement date being 05.02.2020. 5.2. All claims of the Income Tax Department stand extinguished by virtue of operation of law and the respondent now cannot have any right or claim against the petitioner with respect to dues prior to the insolvency commencement date being 05.02.2020. 5.2. In support of his submissions, learned Advocate relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Private Limited vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited & Ors. (2021) 9 SCC 657 . 6. On the other hand, opposing the petition, learned Senior Standing counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani submitted that the impugned notices dated 17.04.2021 and 30.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act were issued by the respondent for reassessment of income for Assessment Year 2016-17. It was submitted that in view of clear statutory provision, the powers of the respondent cannot be curtailed when procedure in accordance with law has been followed. He further submitted that the decision relied upon by the petitioner in case of Ghanashyam Mishra (Supra) is with regard to extinguish of the claim after approval of resolution plan by NCLT, however, in the present case, the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act has been initiated and this being not the recovery proceedings, the decision would not be applicable. 7. Considering the submissions made on behalf of both the sides and upon perusal of the record, it is noticed that pursuant to insolvency proceedings initiated under the Code, a resolution plan dated 14.10.2021 was approved by the Tribunal under Section 30(6) of the Code. It is also on record that the claim which was lodged by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot was verified and admitted in the proceedings before NCLT. In the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ghanashyam Mishra (Supra) it is held as under: “102. NCLT found, that by email dated 6.1.2018, EARC had submitted its claim in Form ‘C’ for an amount of Rs.648,89,62,395/-. In response to the said email, RP sought a clarification, as to whether the corporate guarantee had been invoked by the applicant. RP had not received any response till 21.2.2018 from EARC. Despite repeated requests made by RP, EARC did not respond to the query made by RP. From the record placed before NCLT, it was clear, that EARC had not invoked the corporate guarantee. RP had not received any response till 21.2.2018 from EARC. Despite repeated requests made by RP, EARC did not respond to the query made by RP. From the record placed before NCLT, it was clear, that EARC had not invoked the corporate guarantee. NCLT therefore posed a question to itself, as to whether an uninvoked corporate guarantee could be considered as matured claim of the applicant. NCLT found, that once the moratorium was applied under Section 14 of I&B Code, EARC was prevented from invoking the corporate guarantee. NCLT further found, that the OMML’s guarantee had not been invoked by EARC till the date of completion of CIRP process and once the moratorium was imposed, it could not invoke the corporate guarantee. NCLT therefore found, that there is no illegality or irregularity in not admitting the claim of EARC.” 8. Thus, in view of above clear provisions of law no person would be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect of any claim for any dues relating to the period prior to approval of resolution plan. In view of approval of plan, all liabilities of stakeholders including that of Government/Statutory Authority stand extinguished after approval of resolution plan. We therefore, deem it appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned notices dated 17.04.2021 and 30.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act as well as the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) dated 28.07.2022. The petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute. No orders as to cost.