<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (6) TMI 1351 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793970</link>
    <description>Proceedings under the CGST Act cannot validly be initiated against an amalgamating company after it has ceased to exist on merger, especially where the tax authority had knowledge of the amalgamation. The notice was issued in the name of a dissolved entity despite a court-approved scheme and intimation to the Department. Section 87 of the CGST Act was read as dealing only with the treatment of companies during the relevant intervening period and cancellation of registrations, not as authority to commence adjudication against a non-existent company. The notice and the consequential order were therefore void ab initio and without jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2026 07:07:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=908749" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 1351 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793970</link>
      <description>Proceedings under the CGST Act cannot validly be initiated against an amalgamating company after it has ceased to exist on merger, especially where the tax authority had knowledge of the amalgamation. The notice was issued in the name of a dissolved entity despite a court-approved scheme and intimation to the Department. Section 87 of the CGST Act was read as dealing only with the treatment of companies during the relevant intervening period and cancellation of registrations, not as authority to commence adjudication against a non-existent company. The notice and the consequential order were therefore void ab initio and without jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793970</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>