Amalgamation and successor liability: assessment in the transferor company's name was not quashed because the defect arose from the assessee's own conduct.

Where a successor assessee files the return in the name of the amalgamating company after amalgamation has taken effect, it cannot later seek quashing of the assessment merely because the order was issued in that former name. The court treated the continued use of the transferor's name as a defect arising from the petitioner's own conduct, not a jurisdictional error. It also relied on the scheme of amalgamation and succession of business to hold that the successor, having assumed the assets and liabilities, could not disown the return filed in the defunct company's name. The writ challenge to the assessment therefore failed and the tax order was allowed to stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment order passed in the name of the amalgamating company was liable to be quashed on the ground that the company had ceased to exist after amalgamation.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the effect of amalgamation and the conduct of the petitioner in continuing to file returns in the name of the transferor company after the amalgamation became effective. The Court distinguished the authorities relied upon by the petitioner on the ground that, unlike those cases, the return for the relevant assessment year had itself been filed in the name of the merged company. Referring to the scheme of amalgamation and the statutory position under succession of business, the Court held that the petitioner, as successor, could not disown the return filed in the name of the defunct company or treat the respondent's order as invalid on that basis. The use of the former name was treated as a defect attributable to the petitioner's own conduct and not as a jurisdictional error warranting interference.

Conclusion: The challenge to the assessment order failed and the objection based on the non-existent status of the transferor company was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on the facts presented, and the impugned tax order was allowed to stand.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the successor assessee itself files the return in the name of the amalgamating company after the amalgamation has taken effect, it cannot later seek quashing of the assessment merely because the order was issued in that name, especially when the successor has assumed the assets and liabilities and the defect is attributable to its own conduct.

---