Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2701 to 2720 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
GST proceedings initiated against an amalgamating company after the scheme of merger took effect were void ab initio because the entity had ceased to exist in law. The Court held that once the merger was intimated to the GST authorities, a show-cause notice and any consequential order could not validly be issued against the non-existent company, as this was a jurisdictional defect. Section 87 of the CGST Act was confined to the interregnum between the effective date of amalgamation and the date of the order, and did not authorise proceedings against a dissolved entity after merger. The impugned order was therefore unsustainable and the petition was allowed.
GST proceedings initiated against an amalgamating company after the scheme of merger took effect were void ab initio because the entity had ceased to exist in law. The Court held that once the merger was intimated to the GST authorities, a show-cause notice and any consequential order could not validly be issued against the non-existent company, as this was a jurisdictional defect. Section 87 of the CGST Act was confined to the interregnum between the effective date of amalgamation and the date of the order, and did not authorise proceedings against a dissolved entity after merger. The impugned order was therefore unsustainable and the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
