Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
