JUDGMENT : PRANAV TRIVEDI, J. 1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr.Saurabh Soparkar with learned advocate Mr.Jay Kansara, for M/s. Wadiaghandy & Co.,for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Shrunjal Shah for the respondent in Special Civil Application Nos.9855 of 2025 and 10988 of 2025 and Ms.Hetvi Sancheti, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent in Special Civil Application No.9864 of 2025. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Shrunjal Shah, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. 3. With consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the matters are taken up for hearing as the issue involved is very short. All the three petitions have common issue, therefore, are being disposed of by this common order and judgement. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Special Civil Application No.9855 of 2025 are taken as lead matter. 4. All the three petitions have common issue, therefore, are being disposed of by this common order and judgement. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Special Civil Application No.9855 of 2025 are taken as lead matter. 4. The petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayers: “(a) Issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside (i) order dated 8 th April 2022 for FY 2019-20 at Annexure A passed by Respondent No.2, (ii) order dated 9 th December 2024 at Annexure B for FY 2017-18 passed by Respondent No.2; (iii) order dated 15 th February 2025 at Annexure C, for FY 2020-21 passed by Respondent No.3 against the petitioner; and (iv) Notice dated 5 th June 2025 at Annexure D, for FY 2021-22 issued by Respondent No.2; (iv) Show Cause Notice dated 12 th June 2025, at Annexure E for FY 2018-19 issued by Respondent No.4; (vi) Show Cause Notice dated 27 th June 2025 at Annexure F, for FY 2018-19 issued by Respondent No.4; and (vii) Show Cause Notice dated 30 th June 2025 at Annexure-G for FY 2018- 19 issued by Respondent No.3 along with all other proceedings or coercive action relating thereto; (b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the Respondents from taking any action for recovery of GST, penalty, interest charges or other claims of any kind relating to a period prior to the Effective Date i.e. 29th March 2023 under the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax, 2017 read with Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 read with Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017; (c) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents for withdrawing / removing the outstanding demand / liability reflecting against the Petitioner’s GST NO. 24AADCB1921F2Z9 on the GST portal in respect of (I) order dated 8 th April 2022 for FY 2019-20 at Annexure A passed by Respondent No.2; (ii) order dated 9 th December 2024 at Annexure B for FY 2017-18 passed by Respondent No.2; and (iii) order dated 15 th February 2025 at Annexure C for FY 2020-21 passed by Respondent No.3 against the petitioner; (d) Issue a Writ of Mandamus and / or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents to issue intimation in Form DRC GST-25 to the Petitioner in accordance with Section 84 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 161 of the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 and Circular No.187/19/2022-GST dated 27 th December 2022; (e) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the effect, operation and implementation of the (i) order dated 8 th April 2022 for FY 2019-20 at Annexure A passed by Respondent No.2, (ii) order dated 9 th December 2024 at Annexure B for FY 2017-18 passed by Respondent No.2; (iii) order dated 15 th 15 th February 2025 at Annexure C for FY 2020-21 passed by Respondent No.3 against the petitioner, and (iv) Notice dated 5 th June 2025 at Annexure D, for FY 2021-22 issued by Respondent No.2; (v) Show Cause Notice dated 12 th June 2025 at Annexure E for FY 2018-19 issued by Respondent No.4; (vi) Show Cause Notice dated 27 th June 2025 at Annexure F for FY 2018-19 issued by Respondent No.4 and (vii) Show Cause Notice dated 30 th June 2025 at Annexure G for FY 2018-19 issued by Respondent No.3 along with all other proceedings or coercive action relating thereto; (f) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to restrain the Respondents from initiating or continuing any proceedings against the Petitioner for GST which relate to a period prior to the Effective Date i.e. 29th March 2023.” 5. The brief facts of the case are as under: 5.1 The petitioner is a Corporate Debtor Company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and is also registered under the provisions of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the CGST Act’) as well as under the Gujarat Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the GGST Act’) as well as under the provisions of Integrated Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘IGST Act’). 5.2 The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying of wide range of plastic products. 5.3 A Company Petition being CP (IB) No. 759 of 2019 was filed by operational creditor under Sec.9 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short ‘the IBC’) before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The NCLT vide order dated 18.12.2020 admitted the Company Petition and initiated CIRP against the petitioner. Subsequently, a Resolution Professional as per the provisions of IBC was appointed. 5.4 The respondent No.2, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent’) issued notice dated 26.07.2021 in Form GSTASMT-10 issued under Sec.61 of GGST Act to the petitioner intimating the discrepancies in the return filed by the petitioner for the period from April 2019 to March 2020 relating to F.Y 2019-20. The petitioner was asked to submit its reply by 04.08.2021. The petitioner submitted its response on 10.09.2021 in Form GST ASMT-11. An intimation of tax ascertained as payable under Sec.73(5) of GGST Act by the petitioner was issued in Form GST DRC- 01A on 08.01.2022 and the petitioner was advised to pay an amount of Rs.2,99,39,061/- including interest and penalty. On 21.01.2022, the petitioner submitted its response to the intimation. 5.5 Therefore, on 04.03.2022, the respondent issued show-cause notice (SCN-1) in Form GST DRC 01 under Sec.73 of GGST Act for F.Y 2019-20, wherein, the petitioner was asked to make a payment of Rs.1,49,27,290/- including interest and penalty for wrongly claiming ITC for tax period F.Y 2019-20. Response to the show-cause notice was submitted by the petitioner on 11.03.2022 by filing Form GST DRC- 06. The respondent passed Order along with Form GST DRC-07 both dated 08.04.2022 raising a tax demand of Rs.15,80,293/- along with interest of Rs.7,61,276/- and penalty of Rs.1,58,039/- under Sec.73 of the CGST Act in relation to the alleged discrepancies for the Financial Year 2019-20. The respondent passed Order along with Form GST DRC-07 both dated 08.04.2022 raising a tax demand of Rs.15,80,293/- along with interest of Rs.7,61,276/- and penalty of Rs.1,58,039/- under Sec.73 of the CGST Act in relation to the alleged discrepancies for the Financial Year 2019-20. 5.6 With regard to the CIRP, on 25.01.2023, the Committee of Creditors of the petitioner approved the Resolution Plan submitted by the consortium of Propel Plastic Products Private Limited and Plastauto Private Limited. 5.7 On 17.03.2023, the National Company Law Tribunal passed an order approving the Resolution Plan of the petitioner under the provisions of the IBC. On 29.03.2023, the Resolution Plan was implemented. Subsequent to the implementation of the Resolution Plan, Propel Plastic Products Private Limited was amalgamated with the petitioner and the auto business of the petitioner was transferred to Plastauto Private Limited. 5.8 On 26.07.2024, an intimation under Sec.74(5) of the GGST Act and CGST Act for the period from July 2017 till March 2018, in Form GST DRC-01A was issued by the respondent No.2 for the alleged ineligible input tax credit claimed by the petitioner. The respondent No.2 advised the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.6,74,77,650/-, including interest and penalty by 30.07.2024, failure of which resulted in issuance of show-cause notice dated 01.08.2024 (“SCN 2”) in Form GST DRC-01 asking the petitioner as to why the tax determined along with the interest and penalty be recovered from the petitioner for alleged failure to correctly declare its tax liability for F.Y 2017-18. 5.9 On 30.08.2024, response in Form GST DRC-06 to (“SCN 2”) was submitted by the petitioner, calling upon the respondent to withdraw show-cause notice (“SCN 2”) considering that after the approval of the Resolution Plan, all claims, demands, debt and liabilities stood extinguished. 5.9 On 30.08.2024, response in Form GST DRC-06 to (“SCN 2”) was submitted by the petitioner, calling upon the respondent to withdraw show-cause notice (“SCN 2”) considering that after the approval of the Resolution Plan, all claims, demands, debt and liabilities stood extinguished. On 19.10.2024, respondent No.3 issued a show-cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 (“SCN 3”) to the petitioner, asking the petitioner to show-cause as to why the tax determined under the show-cause notice along with applicable interest and penalty amounting to Rs.7,61,38,946/- be not recovered from the petitioner for the alleged failure of the petitioner to correctly declare its tax liability for the Financial Year 2020-21, to which the petitioner submitted a detailed response on 21.10.2024 in Form GST DRC-06, thereby requesting the respondent No.3 to withdraw the SCN-3 considering that the approved Resolution Plan extinguished all claims, demands, debt and liabilities prior to the approval of the Resolution Plan. 5.10 On 09.12.2024, respondent No.2 passed an order adjudicating SCN-2 dated 01.08.2024, raising a tax demand of Rs.3,07,34,813/- along with interest of Rs.3,42,69,738/- and penalty of Rs.3,07,34,813/- under the relevant sections of the GGST and IGST Act in relation to alleged discrepancies for the FY 2017-18. On 09.01.2025, the petitioner issued a letter to the respondent No.5 pointing out that in view of the approved Resolution Plan, the petitioner cannot be saddled with a liability for a period prior to the approval of the Resolution Plan and requested for issuance of intimation in Form DRC GST-25 and also sought an opportunity of personal hearing. 5.11 On 15.02.2025, the respondent No.3, dismissed petitioner’s request for withdrawal of proceedings on the ground that the petitioner has not responded to the allegations in the show-cause notice and passed an order adjudicating SCN-3 dated 19.10.2024 and thereby raising a tax demand of Rs.4,16,20,313/- along with interest and penalty of Rs.3,27,58,038/- and Rs.41,62,031/- respectively under relevant sections of GGST and CGST Act for the alleged discrepancies identified for the FY. 2020-2021, to which, the petitioner issued a letter to respondent No.5 on 10.03.2025 pointing out that in view of the approved Resolution Plan, the petitioner cannot be saddled with a liability for a period prior to the approval of the Resolution Plan and requested for issuance of intimation in Form DRC GST-25 and also sought an opportunity of personal hearing. 2020-2021, to which, the petitioner issued a letter to respondent No.5 on 10.03.2025 pointing out that in view of the approved Resolution Plan, the petitioner cannot be saddled with a liability for a period prior to the approval of the Resolution Plan and requested for issuance of intimation in Form DRC GST-25 and also sought an opportunity of personal hearing. 5.12 On 29.05.2025, respondent No.4, issued an intimation to the petitioner, whereby, the petitioner was advised to pay Rs.1,76,14,186/- including interest and penalty for the tax ascertained as payable by the petitioner under Sec.73(5) and Sec.74(5) in Form GST DRC-01A – Part A for the period between April 2018 to March 2019 for the alleged excess availed / utilized ITC. The petitioner, to this intimation-cum-demand notice dated 29.05.2025, filed its detailed response dated 03.06.2025 in Form GST DRC-01A-Part B requesting the respondent No.4 to withdraw the intimation-cum-demand notice dated 29.05.2025, considering that the approved Resolution Plan extinguishes all claims, demands, debt and liabilities for a period prior to the approval of the Resolution Plan. 5.13 On 05.06.2025, respondent No.2 issued a notice for intimation for discrepancies in return after scrutiny in Form ASMT-10 for period of 2021-22, to which, the petitioner filed detailed response in Form GST ASMT-11 dated 10.06.2025 requesting the respondent No.2 to withdraw the impugned notice dated 05.06.2025 considering that the approved Resolution Plan extinguishes all claims, demands, debt and liabilities for a period prior to the approval of the Resolution Plan. 5.14 On 12.06.2025, respondent No.4 issued a show- cause notice (“SCN 4”) in Form GST DRC-01 to the petitioner to show cause as to why the tax determined under SCN 4 of Rs.74,97,496/- along with interest of Rs.90,43,830/- and penalty of Rs.74,97,496/- be not recovered from the petitioner. To this show-cause notice, the petitioner filed its detailed response on 17.06.2025 in Form GST DRC-06, requesting the respondent No.4 to withdraw the show-cause notice dated 12.06.2025 considering that the approved Resolution Plan extinguishes all claims, demands, debt and liabilities for a period prior to the approval of the Resolution Plan. 5.15 On 23.06.2025, respondent No.4 issued Form GST DRC -01A containing intimation of tax ascertained as payable under Sec.73(5) and Sec.74(5) of the Act by the petitioner for the period between F.Y April 2018 to March 2019 for alleged excess availed / utilized ITC, whereby, the petitioner was advised to pay Rs.40,90,570/- including interest and penalty. 5.15 On 23.06.2025, respondent No.4 issued Form GST DRC -01A containing intimation of tax ascertained as payable under Sec.73(5) and Sec.74(5) of the Act by the petitioner for the period between F.Y April 2018 to March 2019 for alleged excess availed / utilized ITC, whereby, the petitioner was advised to pay Rs.40,90,570/- including interest and penalty. The petitioner, in response to the intimation, on 25.06.2025, filed its detailed response in Form GST DRC-01A-Part B, thereby requesting the respondent No.4 to withdraw the intimation-cum-demand notice considering that the approved Resolution Plan extinguishes all claims, demands, debt and liabilities for a period prior to the approval of the Resolution Plan. 5.16 On 27.06.2025, respondent No.4 issued a show- cause notice (“SCN 5”) in Form GST DRC-01 to the petitioner to show-cause as to why tax determined under the SCN 5 at Rs.17,32,066/- along with interest of Rs.21,02,112/- and penalty of Rs.17,32,066/- be not recovered from the petitioner for the F.Y 2018-19. 5.17 On 30.06.2025, respondent No.3, issued a show- cause notice (“SCN 6) in Form GST DRC-01 to the petitioner to show cause as to why the tax determined under the SCN 6 of Rs.2,67,840/- along with interest of Rs.3,25,459/- and a penalty of Rs.2,67,840/- be not recovered from the petitioner for the alleged ineligible utilization / availing of ITC for the F.Y April 2018 to March 2019. 5.18 On 02.07.2025, the petitioner filed two detailed responses, in Form GST DRC-06 to both SCN-5 and SCN-6, requesting the respondents No.4 and respondent No.3 to withdraw the SCN-5 considering that the approved Resolution Plan extinguishes all claims, demands, debt and liabilities for a period prior to the approval of the Resolution Plan. 6. Mr. Saurabh Soparkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that on the approval of the Resolution Plan under Section 31 of the IBC, all dues of the Corporate Debtor except those which have been specifically provided for in the Resolution Plan would stand extinguished in terms of the provisions of the IBC and in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of The Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel Ltd. Vs. Satishkumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531 and in case of Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd., (2021) 9 SCC 657 . Mr. Satishkumar Gupta, (2020) 8 SCC 531 and in case of Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd., (2021) 9 SCC 657 . Mr. Soparkar, learned Senior Advocate submitted that in the present case, the tax dues stand extinguished in terms of the Resolution Plan. 7. Mr. Shrunjal Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent is not in a position to controvert the position of law as far as the extinguishment of the tax dues are concerned in terms of Section 31 of the IBC. She however submits that in view of the said position, this Court may not enter into the merits of the issuance of notice. 8. DISCUSSION & FINDINGS :- 8.1 A perusal of the Resolution Plan which came to be approved on 17.03.2023 by the learned NCLT would reveal the following provisions as evident from the relevant portion extracted below:- “19. We have also noted that as per para 7.1 of the resolution plan as contained in page nos. 246 to 254 of the interlocutory application, relief and concessions have been sought on various issues including the carry forward losses of the Corporate Debtor, after the takeover by the Resolution Applicant During the course of hearing, our attention was drawn onto the provisions of section 79 of the Income Tax Act, by Mr Saurabh Soparkar Sr Advocate appearing for the RP. He submitted that the losses in a company are automatically allowed to be carried forward for set-off against the profits in subsequent years in accordance with relevant provisions of Income Tax Act; that in order to prevent misuse of the provisions, section 79 was brought in statute to prevent the carry forwards of losses in certain cases, but that section is not applicable onto the company in which public are substantially interest. Mr Soparkar also submitted that the Corporate Debtor is 100% subsidiary of Sintex Plastics Technology Limited, which is a listed company and therefore it (corporate debtor) is to be treated in the category of a company in which the public are substantially interested and as such the provisions of section 79 of the Income Tax Act are not applicable onto it in the event of take over, and the corporate debtor is eligible to carry forward its losses for set-off against profits of subsequent years even after take over as a result of resolution plan. Mr Soparkar also submitted that the Information Memorandum prepared by the RP included all information of the Corporate Debtor, including the financial statements and that all current and past financial records were made available to the statke-holders for their perusal and consideration. He submitted that the draft of Request For Resolution Plan (RFRP) was prepared on the basis of Information Memorandum and the Propsective Resolution Applicants were asked to submit their plan accordingly. He also submitted that the resolution plan under reference, duly approved by the CoC, is placed for approval of the Adjudicating Authority. Accordingly, he submitted that the Corporate Debtor be allowed for carry forward and set off of its losses after the take over by the Resolution Applicant It was further submitted that as per provisions of section 79 of the Income Tax Act, carry forward and set off of losses in a company, which is not a company in which public are substantially interested, can be allowed only if there is a continuity in the beneficial owner of the shares carrying not less than 51% of the voting power, on the last date of the year or years in which the loss was incurred. The learned counsel Mr Soparkar has also drawn our attention to the clause (c) of sub-section (2) to the said section which provides that nothing contained in that section shall apply to a company where a change in the shareholding takes place in a previous year pursuant to resolution plan approved under the IBC, 2016, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. For ready reference, the relevant provisions of section 79 of Income Tax Act is reproduced hereunder: Carry forward and set off losses in case of certain companies 79 (1). For ready reference, the relevant provisions of section 79 of Income Tax Act is reproduced hereunder: Carry forward and set off losses in case of certain companies 79 (1). Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, where a change in shareholding has taken place during the previous year in the case of a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, no loss incurred in any year prior to the previous year shall be carried forward and set off against the income of the previous year, unless on the last day of the previous year, the shares of the company carrying not less than fifty-one per cent of the voting power were beneficially held by persons who beneficially held shares of the company carrying not less than fifty-one per cent of the voting power on the last day of the year or years in which the loss was incurred; ... (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply: ... (c) to a company where a change in the shareholding takes place in a previous year pursuant to a resolution plan approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; In the context, he stated that the RP had also served a notice dated 09.02 2023 to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer in the Income Tax Department and submitted the copies of the interlocutory application seeking approval of the resolution plan under section 30 of the IBC, 2016. When the matter had come up for hearing on 06.03.2023 for giving clarification as regards to the carry forward losses as well as the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation, the applicant was asked once again to serve the notice upon the Income Tax Department. In pursuance thereof, notice was served to the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The learned counsel Ms Maithili Mehta appearing on behalf of Income Tax Department sought time to make submissions On 13.03.2023 when the matter came up again for hearing, the learned counsel Ms. In pursuance thereof, notice was served to the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The learned counsel Ms Maithili Mehta appearing on behalf of Income Tax Department sought time to make submissions On 13.03.2023 when the matter came up again for hearing, the learned counsel Ms. Mehta stated that applicant company had provided voluminous records that requires due ascertainment of records & assessment orders for several years to come to a conclusion as to whether the company would be entitled to carry forward and set off of its losses following take over on approval of the resolution plan She also stated that reasonable opportunity need to be given to the Department to file its say on the matter. On this, the learned senior counsel Shri Saurabh Soparkar stated that the four volumes which were submitted in the Income Tax Department were nothing but the copy of the resolution plan only and that on the issue of carry forward and set off losses, the Department could have referred to its own records including the returns filed by the Corporate Debtor and assessments made thereon. He also stated that he has submitted such notice to the Assessing Officer and thereafter to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Department as a matter of abundant precaution, though the Corporate Debtor being a company in which public or substantially interested, the provisions of section 79 of the Income Tax are not applicable to its case. Shri Navin Pahwa, Sr. Advocate appearing for the Resolution Applicant also made similar submissions. We have duly considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the RP, RA as well as the Income Tax Department A bare reading of the provisions of section 79 of the Income Tax Act makes it very clear that the provision is applicable for the closely held/private companies only. We have duly considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the RP, RA as well as the Income Tax Department A bare reading of the provisions of section 79 of the Income Tax Act makes it very clear that the provision is applicable for the closely held/private companies only. The provision is not at all applicable in case of a company in which public are substantially interest (i.e. a widely held company) It is noted that the provision is intended to curb taxpayers intention to transfer losses of a closely held company through a transfer of shareholding by putting a restriction for continuity of the beneficial owner of the shares carrying not less than 51% of the voting power To that provision, exceptions are carved out in sub-section (2) thereof wherein the clause (c) relates to the take over/ change in shareholding pursuant to approval of the resolution plan under the IBC, and in the event of such take over / change in shareholding, the condition of continuity of 51% shareholding is dispensed with. But it requires giving of reasonable opportunity to the Principal Commissioner. We have also noted that for the purpose of the applicability of section 79 of the Income Tax Act, the status of the company at the time of change in shareholding is relevant. We are of the considered view that section 79 shall not be applicable if a company was a widely held company (i.e. a company in which public are substantially interested) As such, section 79 shall not be applicable when a widely held company, after take over, acquires an status of closely held company, but the section would be applicable even if a closely held company, after take over/ change in shareholding acquires the status of widely held company. In the present case, the Corporate Debtor under CIRP is a subsidiary of a listed company Therefore, the status of the Corporate Debtor before take over (on approval of the resolution plan under IBC, 2016) is of widely held company Le a company in which public are substantially interest. We have also noted that after the take over its status would be of a closely held company. But as discussed herein above, for the purpose of applicability of section 79, the status of the company at the time of change in shareholding (i.e. prior to take over) is only relevant. We have also noted that after the take over its status would be of a closely held company. But as discussed herein above, for the purpose of applicability of section 79, the status of the company at the time of change in shareholding (i.e. prior to take over) is only relevant. In that view of the matter, we hold that section 79 of the Income Tax Act is not at all applicable on the Corporate Debtor even after its take over on approval of the resolution plan under IBC, 2016. Accordingly, it shall be automatically entitled to carry forward its losses for set off against income in subsequent years in accordance with the provisions of Income Tax Act and to that extent relief sought is allowed. During the course of hearing, the RP was asked to file a chart giving details of yearwise losses which are claimed for carry forward. The RP filed a purshish dated 13 03.2023 containing the required details at annexure-1 thereof which reflects the unabsorbed depreciation relating to A.Y. 2010-11 to 2022-23 amounting to Rs. 412.86 crores, business loss relating to A.Y. 2020-21 amounting to Rs 290.73 crores and long term capital losses relating to AY 2016-17, 2017-18 amounting to Rs. 475.22 crores. The Assessing Officer and/or Principal Commissioner would verify the claim from the assessment records and shall allow the eligible losses incurred in the past to be carried forward ahead for set-off against profit in subsequent years, after the take over on approval of the resolution plan, in accordance with the provisions under the Income Tax Act. It would also meet the requirement of giving reasonable opportunity to the Income Tax Department, if at all required, in terms of the section 79(2)(c). 20. As far as reliefs and concessions claimed by the Resolution Applicant relating to previous claims of the Corporate Debtor is concerned, the law has been well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and Ors. MANU/SC/0273/2021 in the following words: “….86. 20. As far as reliefs and concessions claimed by the Resolution Applicant relating to previous claims of the Corporate Debtor is concerned, the law has been well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and Ors. MANU/SC/0273/2021 in the following words: “….86. The legislative intent behind this is, to freeze all the claims so that the resolution applicant starts on a clean slate and is not flung with any surprise claims If that is permitted, the very calculations on the basis of which the resolution applicant submits its plans, would go haywire and the plan would be unworkable. 87. We have no hesitation to say, that the word "other stakeholders" would squarely cover the Central Government, any State Government or any local authorities. The legislature, noticing that on account of obvious omission, certain tax authorities were not abiding by the mandate of I&B Code and continuing with the proceedings, has brought out the 2019 amendment so as to cure the said mischief.." In view of the above, we hold that the Resolution Applicant cannot be saddled with any previous claim against the Corporate Debtor prior to initiation of its CIRP For the permits, licenses, leases, or any other statutory right vested in the Corporate Debtor shall remain with the Corporate Debtor and for the continuation of such statutory rights, the resolution applicant has to approach the concerned statutory authorities under relevant laws. For any other relief and concession also the Resolution Applicant has to approach the concerned Statutory Authorities under relevant laws. 21. It is also noted that the resolution plan also includes a proposal for reverse merger of the company Propel Plastic Products Private Limited (which is resolution applicant-1 of the consortium) with the Corporate Debtor pursuant to the approval of the resolution plan. In the context, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Successful Resolution Applicant containing therewith a certified true copy of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of Propel Pastic Products Private Limited in its meeting held on 21.12.2022. Considering the proposal as contained in the resolution plan, no further formalities are required as per section 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013 as regards to the Corporate Debtor Sintex-BAPL Limited. Accordingly. Considering the proposal as contained in the resolution plan, no further formalities are required as per section 230-232 of the Companies Act, 2013 as regards to the Corporate Debtor Sintex-BAPL Limited. Accordingly. we allow the merger which will be effective from the date of this order subject to the condition that as per the said resolution dated 21.12.2022, the company Propel Plastic Products Private Limited shall seek the formal approval separately as per the Companies Act, 2013. 22. With these directions, we approve this Resolution Plan and pass the following orders: ORDER : I. Application is allowed. II. The Resolution Plan submitted by Propel Consortium stands allowed as per section 30(6) of the IBC, 2016. III. The approved Resolution Plan' shall become effective from the date of passing of this order. IV. The order of moratorium dated 18.12.2020 passed by this Adjudicating Authority under section 14 of I&B Code, 2016 shall cease to have effect from the date of passing of this order. V. The Resolution Professional shall forthwith send a copy of this order to the participants and the Resolution Applicant(s). VI. The Resolution Applicant shall, pursuant to the resolution plan approved under section 31(1) of the IBC, 2016, obtain necessary approvals required under any law for the time being in force within a period of one year from the date of approval of the Resolution Plan by the Adjudicating Authority under section 31 or within such period as provided for in such law, whichever is later, as the case may be. VII. The Resolution Professional shall forward all records relating to the conduct of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and Resolution Plan to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India to be recorded in its database. VIII. Accordingly, IA/187(AHM)2023 in CP (IB) 759 of 2019 is allowed and stands disposed of in terms of the above directions; IX. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, to be issued to all concerned parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.” 9. From the perusal of the above, it is evident that all tax liabilities, assessed and unassessed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 “shall stand waived and extinguished.” 10. In case of The Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel Ltd. (Supra) , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- "107. From the perusal of the above, it is evident that all tax liabilities, assessed and unassessed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 “shall stand waived and extinguished.” 10. In case of The Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel Ltd. (Supra) , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- "107. For the same reason, the impugned NCLAT judgment in holding that claims that may exist apart from those decided on merits by the resolution professional and by the Adjudicating Authority/Appellate Tribunal can now be decided by an appropriate forum in terms of Section 60(6) of the Code, also militates against the rationale of Section 31 of the Code. A successful resolution applicant cannot suddenly be faced with "undecided" claims after the resolution plan submitted by him has been accepted as this would amount to a hydra head popping up which would throw into uncertainty amounts payable by a prospective resolution applicant who would successfully take over the business of the corporate debtor. All claims must be submitted to and decided by the resolution professional so that a prospective resolution applicant knows exactly what has to be paid in order that it may then take over and run the business of the corporate debtor. This the successful resolution applicant does on a fresh slate, as has been pointed out by us hereinabove. For these reasons, NCLAT judgment must also be set aside on this count." 11. In the case of Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. (Supra) , the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held as under:- “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. 102.2 The 2019 Amendment to Section 31 IBC is clarificatory and declaratory in nature and therefore will be effective from the date on which IBC has come into effect. 102.2 The 2019 Amendment to Section 31 IBC is clarificatory and declaratory in nature and therefore will be effective from the date on which IBC has come into effect. 102.3 Consequently all the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, if not part of the resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on which the adjudicating authority grants its approval under Section 31 could be continued. 138. In the forgoing paragraph, we have held that the 2019 Amendment to Section 31 IBC is clarificatory and declaratory in nature and therefore will have a retrospective operation. As such, when the resolution plan is approved by NCLT, the claims, which are not part of the resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and the proceedings related thereto shall stand terminated. Since the subject-matter of the petition are the proceedings which relate to the claims of the respondents prior to the approval of the plan, the same cannot be continued. Equally the claims, which are not part of the resolution plan, shall stand extinguished.” 12. Therefore, applying the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court to the facts of the present case, it is clear that on the complete extinguishment of all tax liabilities of the Corporate Debtor upon the approval of the Resolution Plan on 17.03.2023, there could be no occasion whatsoever for the respondents to issue the impugned notices. 13. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and the (i) order dated 8 th April 2022 for FY 2019-20 passed by Respondent No.2, (ii) order dated 9 th December 2024 for FY 2017-18 passed by Respondent No.2; (iii) order dated 15 th February 2025 for FY 2020-21 passed by Respondent No.3 against the petitioner and (iv) Notice dated 5 th June 2025 for FY 2021-22 issued by Respondent No.2; (iv) Show Cause Notice dated 12 th June 2025, for FY 2018-19 issued by Respondent No.4; (vi) Show Cause Notice dated 27 th June 2025, for FY 2018-19 issued by Respondent No.4; and (vii) Show Cause Notice dated 30 th June 2025 for FY 2018- 19 issued by Respondent No.3 along with all other proceedings or coercive action relating thereto are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.