Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
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 4828 
Join Channel 
