TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1238
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2018-2019 and the intimation dated 28/10/2024 to initiate recovery proceedings in Special Civil Application No. 2496 of 2024. 3. Both these petitions are preferred with a common issue and the prayers made therein are similar in nature. Therefore, both these petitions were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. 4. Having regard to the controversy involved in these petitions, which is in narrow compass, with consent of learned advocates for he respective parties, both the petitions are taken up for final hearing. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a former director of one M/s. Zeb IT Service Limited (herein after referred to as 'the Company') which was engaged in business of providing platform for purchase and sale of virtual currencies. The said company was registered under the provisions of the GST Act. The said company decided to close its business and went into voluntary liquidation. 6. Before filing application for voluntary liquidation before the National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad, the said company duly intimated the respondent regarding the fact that it was going for voluntary liquidation by letter dated 01/1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner submitted that the said company in which the petitioner was a director had informed the respondent department regarding dissolution of the Company prior to filing an application for voluntary winding up and thereafter the registration of the said company was also cancelled. It was submitted that inspite of such facts being disclosed, the show cause notice was issued under Section 73 of the GST Act. It was pointed out that in response to the show cause notice, the petitioner has submitted the order of the NCLT for dissolution of the company. It was submitted that instead of considering the reply and the position, respondent no. 2 passed impugned orders under Section 73 of the GST Act by recording the submission of the petitioner that the company has already been dissolved and the current status of the company stands as liquidated/Dissolved with effect from 30/09/2022 but confirmed the demand only on the ground that no relevant supporting documents were provided by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice. 15. On the other hand, learned AGP Ms. Shrunjal Shah appearing for the respondent State Authority has submitted that the respondent authority has already taken co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wering respondent have all the jurisdiction to issue such order under section 73 of the act. 14. I respectfully say and submit that even the reply to the show-cause notice given by the petitioner only gives the order of NCLT but the show-cause notice is issued for mainly 5 reasons i.e. [1] difference between GSTR 1 and GSTR 9 for the excess supplies declared, [2] issue is of scrutiny of ITC which is availed by the petitioner company, [3] Issue is related to the ITC to be recovered on non-business transaction and exempt supplies and [4] related to ineligible ITC, admittedly on the said four issues no relevant supporting documents were given by the petitioner and therefore impugned demand order under section 73 is issued. 15. I respectfully say and submit that, it emergence from the records placed by the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court that it was intentionally an attempt done by the petitioner to communicate relevant information only with the Central GST authorities inspite of knowing the fact that the administrative jurisdiction is with the State authorities. Therefore, it emerges that the petitioner intentionally did n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Liquidation on dated 30.09.2022 and accordingly the current status of the company stands as liquidated/Dissolved with effect from 30.09.2022. In other words the company currently is not into existence (stands dissolved). Also the tax payer has given answer of the said notice, but does not provide any relevant supporting documents for the said para to be clarified. So the said amount of tax has to be paid along with due interest and penalty thereon." 19. Similar reasons are assigned for all additions by reiterating the same. 20. Thus, the impugned orders passed by the respondents are without application of mind and contrary to the record being passed against the dissolved company which cannot be sustained. 21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited reported in (2020) 18 SCC 331, has observed as under: "35. On behalf of the Revenue, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong v Jai Prakash Singh38 ("Jai Prakash Singh"). That was a case where the assessee did not file a return for three assessment years and died in the meantime. His son w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urn of income had been filed by one of the legal representatives to whom notices were issued under Section 142 (1) and 143 (2). No objection was raised by the legal representative who had filed the return that a notice should also to be served to other legal representatives of the deceased assessee. No objection was raised before the assessing officer. Similarly, the decision in Maharaja of Patiala was a case where the notice had been served on the legal representative, the successor Maharaja and the Bombay High Court held that it was not void merely because it omitted to state that it was served in that capacity. 36. 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 approved scheme of amalgamation. Participation in the proceedings by the appellant in the circumstances cannot operate as an estoppel against law. This position now holds the field....