Overlapping GST proceedings require Central and State authorities to designate one competent authority for coordinated adjudication of the same matter...
Composite healthcare supplies retain exemption when patient care is the contract's essential character, despite payment through an implementing agency...
Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
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 
