Merger order effective from its stated date, not from communication; contrary tax treatment was unsustainable.

Where a merger order expressly fixes the effective date of amalgamation, the order operates from that date on its own terms and is not postponed until communication. The tax authority's view that the merger could be treated as prospective from the date of communication was contrary to the merger order and could not override its express terms. The merger was therefore effective from 1 April 1993, and the impugned contrary order was set aside, with the matter left open for fresh action consistent with that effective date.

---

---

Issues: Whether the merger order took effect from the date specified in the order or only from the date of its communication, and whether the tax authority could treat the merger as operating prospectively for the purpose of adjusting tax liability.

Analysis: The merger order expressly stated that the amalgamation would take effect from 1 April 1993. The subsequent administrative view that the merger operated only prospectively from the date of communication was found to be contrary to the merger order itself. The order of merger was treated as operating on its own force according to its terms, and not as depending upon communication for its effectiveness.

Conclusion: The merger had effect from 1 April 1993 as stated in the merger order, and the contrary order passed by the tax authority was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was left open for fresh action in accordance with the merger effective from 1 April 1993.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a merger order specifies the date from which amalgamation is to operate, the order takes effect from that date and cannot be restricted to a later date merely because it was communicated subsequently.

---