Prior Sanction Requirement: absence of prescribed approval invalidates reassessment notice; limitation also bars notice if escaped income below thresh...
Eligibility for exemption depends on strict construction of the product description; reapers without binder are ineligible, but confiscation and penal...
Customs jurisdiction defined for Principal Commissioner, Vishakhapatnam, covering specified ports, districts and India's adjacent EEZ; effective on pu...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
