TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1001
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....opment Private Limited stood amalgamated with the Petitioner by virtue of an Order dated 1 November 2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), approving a scheme of amalgamation. Such order is placed on record at Exhibit-S to this Petition. 3. The present proceedings concern, the amalgamating company, Uber India Research and Development Private Limited (for short "the Assessee"), which has become a non-existent company by virtue of its amalgamation with the Petitioner. 4. It is the Petitioner's case that the fact of amalgamation of the assessee was intimated to Respondent No. 1 as also to Respondent No. 3 by a communication dated 22 December 2023, which was received by the said Respondents on 27 December 2023. The amalga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pugned notice under Section 148, the Petitioner addressed a letter dated 6 May 2024 to Respondent No. 1, raising objections against the said notice and pointing out the reasons as to why the proceedings cannot be taken forward, however there was no response to the Petitioner's letters. It is at such stage the Petitioner has approached this Court by the present Petition inter alia praying for the following substantive reliefs :- (a) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, calling for the records of the Petitioner's case and after going into the legality and propriety thereof, to quash and set aside the show caus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act dated 31.03.2024 ("Exhibit T"), the impugned order dated 10.04.2024 passed under Section 148A (d) of the Act ("Exhibit V") and the subsequent notice dated 10.04.2024 ("Exhibit W") issued under Section 148 of the Act. 7. We have heard Mr. Mistri, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Respondents. We have also perused the record. 8. Although Mr. Mistri has raised several contentions in assailing the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, his primary contention is that the impugned notice needs to be held invalid and illegal, primarily for the reason that the same has been issued to a non-existent entity (Uber India Research and Development Private Limited). According to h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent no. 1 is based at Hyderabad in the State of Telangana. Thus, at the outset, we address the issue as to whether this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, when Respondent No. 1, against whom the relief is sought, is not situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In this context, we may observe that it is not in dispute that, in the facts of the present case, although the impugned notice is issued to the assessee which is a non existent company, the same is served on the Petitioner, whose registered office is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, and who has received the impugned notice at Mumbai. It is the Petitioner which is required to defend such notice as served on it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion the Supreme Court has held that once the amalgamating company had ceased to exist as a result of the scheme of amalgamation approved by the NCLT, there was no warrant in law for the Assessing Officer to proceed against a non-existent company. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court in the said decision are required to be noted which reads thus:- 33. In the present case, despite the fact that the assessing officer was informed of the amalgamating company having ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation, the jurisdictional notice was issued only in its name. The basis on which jurisdiction was invoked was fundamentally at odds with the legal principle that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before notice under section 143 (2) of the Act was issued on 26-9-2013, the scheme of amalgamation had been approved by the high court with effect from 1-4-2012. It has been observed that assessment order passed for the assessment year 2012-13 in the name of non-existing entity is a substantive illegality and would not be procedural violation of Section 292 (b) of the Act. The Supreme Court in its aforesaid decision, has quoted an extract from its decision in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Lid. v. CIT [1990] 53 Taxman 92/186 ITR 278. The Supreme Court has also referred to decision of Delhi high court in the case of CIT v. Spice Enfotainment Ltd. [2018] 12 ITR-OL 134 (SC) and observed that in its decision Delhi high court had held that asses....