Coercive recovery during GST searches is restrained pending scrutiny, preserving normal business operations and requiring adherence to investigation g...
COVID-19 limitation exclusion and destination-specific e-way bills govern revisional timelines and penalties for undocumented third-party plywood deli...
Questions arising from miscellaneous application orders cannot challenge unaltered Tribunal findings, leaving the original order separately challengea...
A reopening notice issued under section 148 in the name of a company already struck off from the register is invalid because jurisdiction cannot be assumed over a non-existent entity. Participation by an ex-director does not cure the defect, and the consequential reassessment order under section 144 read with section 147 falls with the invalid notice. Section 250 of the Companies Act, 2013 did not assist the Revenue because no subsisting liability or obligation of the struck-off company remained on the date of reopening. The notice and reassessment were quashed.
A reopening notice issued under section 148 in the name of a company already struck off from the register is invalid because jurisdiction cannot be assumed over a non-existent entity. Participation by an ex-director does not cure the defect, and the consequential reassessment order under section 144 read with section 147 falls with the invalid notice. Section 250 of the Companies Act, 2013 did not assist the Revenue because no subsisting liability or obligation of the struck-off company remained on the date of reopening. The notice and reassessment were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
