Reassessment notice to a non-existent amalgamated company is void where the merger was already intimated to the revenue.

A reassessment notice issued under section 148 to a company that had already ceased to exist after sanctioned amalgamation was treated as void for lack of jurisdiction. The amalgamation had taken effect from the appointed date, and the revenue had been informed of the merger before the notices were issued, yet the notices were still addressed to the transferor company. The court applied the principle that once the amalgamating entity has dissolved pursuant to a sanctioned scheme, it cannot be proceeded against for reassessment, and distinguished later authority on amalgamation-related reassessment on the facts. The notices were therefore unenforceable.

---

---

Issues: Whether notices issued under section 148 to a company that had ceased to exist upon amalgamation with effect from the appointed date were valid in law.

Analysis: The amalgamation had taken effect from the appointed date, and the jurisdictional officer had been informed of the merger before the impugned notices were issued. The notices were nevertheless issued in the name of the transferor company, which had already ceased to exist. The distinction drawn in the later Supreme Court decision on amalgamation-related reassessment was found inapplicable on the facts because, unlike that case, the amalgamation had been disclosed to the department and the reassessment notices were not issued against a live entity. The governing principle applied was that once the amalgamating entity ceases to exist pursuant to a sanctioned scheme, it cannot be proceeded against for reassessment.

Conclusion: The notices under section 148 were invalid and unenforceable as they were issued to a non-existent entity; the challenge succeeded in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A reassessment notice issued in the name of a company that has ceased to exist upon sanctioned amalgamation, after intimation of the merger to the revenue, is a substantive illegality and is void for want of jurisdiction.

---