Interim stay in reassessment refused where notice named amalgamating company, but final order named amalgamated entity.

Interim relief against reassessment proceedings was refused where the section 148A(b) notice had been issued in the name of the amalgamating company, but the section 148A(d) order was passed in the name of the amalgamated entity. The Court held that the wrong PAN number and the notice-stage defect could be examined at the final hearing, and no substantial prejudice was shown at this stage. A cited precedent was treated as potentially distinguishable because, there, both the notice and the order were issued to the non-existent amalgamating company. The reassessment proceedings were directed to remain subject to the final outcome of the petition, and the hearing was expedited.

---

---

Issues: Whether interim stay ought to be granted against reassessment proceedings where the notice under section 148A(b) was issued in the name of the amalgamating company, while the section 148A(d) order was passed in the name of the amalgamated entity, and whether the wrong PAN number warranted immediate interference.

Analysis: The challenge was founded on the issuance of preliminary notice to a non-existing entity after amalgamation. The final order, however, was passed in the name of the petitioner-amalgamated company. The Court noted that the effect of the incorrect PAN number could be examined at the final hearing and found no substantial showing of prejudice from the preliminary notice stage. The relied-upon precedent was treated as potentially distinguishable because, there, both the notice and the order were issued in the name of the non-existent amalgamating company.

Outcome: Interim stay was refused, the reassessment proceedings were directed to abide by the final orders in the petition, and the hearing was expedited.

---