1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jaimin R. Dave for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms.Hetvi H. Sancheti for the respondent.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms. Hetvi H. Sancheti waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing, as the issue involved is very short.

3. This petition is filed under Art.226 and Art.227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, the following prayers have been made : -
"a) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 19.01.2023 at Annexure "A" to the Petition being in contravention of S.31 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and dicta laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Put. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, reported in 2021 (9) SCC 657;
(b) During pendency and final disposal of the present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the order dated 19.01.2023 at Annexure "A" to the Petition and restrain Respondents from initiating any proceedings pursuant to the order dated 19.01.2023 at Annexure "A" to the Petition;
c) Pass any such other and / or further order that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case;
d) Award cost of the present petition."

4. 1. A Company Petition (I.B.) No. 199 of 2018 was filed by Financial Creditor namely, M/s. J. M. Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd under S.7 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (herein after referred to as "IB Code") for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process before the Ld. National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as "NCLT").
4.2 Accordingly, the IRP, Mr. Hiten M Parikh invited claims against the Petitioner through a public advertisement dated 02.08.2019. It is submitted that subsequent to such public announcement, all the persons / departments / companies / corporations who had outstanding claims against the petitioner were under obligation to lodge their claims before the IRP under the prescribed form.
4.3 On 28.11.2019, the resolution plan submitted by Resolution Applicant was approved by CoC on 28.11.2019 by 100% voting share. Thereafter, RP filed an application being Interlocutory Application No. 54 of 2020 in Company Petition (I.B.) No. 199 of 2018 under S.30(6) of the I.B. Code for obtaining the approval of resolution plan of Ld. NCLT in accordance with S.30 read with S.31 of the I.B. Code.
4.4. In the meantime, despite the fact that moratorium under S.14 of IB Code was in existence, a show cause notice dated 24.07.2019 bearing number F. No. DRI / AZU / CI / ENQ - 22(INT - 05) / 2019 - Tiger was issued by Pr. Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad and proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner for alleged violation of Customs Act, 1962, Export and Import Policy 2004-2009 and EPCG Authorization Scheme.
4.5 As per the terms of the approved resolution plan, the Successful Resolution Applicant had agreed for payment of Rs.3,33,74,000/-(Rupees Three Crores Thirty - Three Lakhs Seventy - Four Thousand) to the creditors of the Petitioner who had lodged their claim before IRP / RP.
4.6. That under the said resolution plan, Petitioner was required to pay an amount of Rs.10,05,249/- to the office of the Commissioner of Customs (Export). Accordingly, on 15.07.2021, the petitioner issued three Demand Drafts of Rs.10,05,249/- to the Commissioner of Customs (Export). However, since the said Demand Drafts were not deposited by Commissioner of Customs (Export), the same got expired. In view of the above, vide letter dated 28.03.2022, Commissioner of Customs (Export), Mumbai requested Petitioner to issue fresh Demand Drafts vide letter dated 28.