TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1341
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Accounts being A/c. No. 661104000004008 maintained with IDBI Bank, Badlapur Branch. b) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions to quash and set aside the impugned notice/communication dated 15.09.2022 (at Exhibit-D) and further be pleased to declare that the petitioner is not liable for the dues of M/s. Urdhwa Chemicals Company Pvt. Ltd. now amalgamated with M/s. Omkar Speciality Chemicals Ltd. c) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions to restrain the respondent-authorities to initiate any other recovery actions against the petitioner for alleged dues of M/s. Urdhwa Chemicals Company Pvt. Ltd. now amalgamated with M/s. Omkar Speciality Chemicals Ltd. d) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased during the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to restrain from taking any coercive steps and not to recover any amount from Bank Accounts being A/c. no. 661....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovisions of MVAT. It is in these circumstances, this Writ Petition is filed seeking the reliefs as noted by us hereinabove. 6. Reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 of Smt. Sunita S. Thorat, Joint Commissioner of State Tax, GST Office justifying the action taken. The reply affidavit primarily contends that there were tax dues as payable by Urdhwa Chemicals and by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 44(6) of MVAT, 2002, the respondent was justified in issuing the impugned notice for recovery of the outstanding tax as payable by Urdhwa Chemicals. It is on such backdrop, we have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made extensive submissions. He would submit that in issuing the impugned notice dated 15 September, 2022, the basic aspects which have been overlooked by the respondent are two-fold - firstly, that Urdhwa Chemicals, since 13 April, 2017 is no more an existing company, hence an action of recovery of the alleged dues payable by the non-existing company itself was unsustainable and secondly, the petitioner after having resigned, in any event, could not be said to have any concern in the said ent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oving a scheme of amalgamation between the said entities. Despite such amalgamation, a notice was issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 alleging that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income-tax Act. In such context, the Court, referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Pr. CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC) and the decision of this Court in Teleperformance Global Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2021) 435 ITR 725 (Bom) while allowing the petition, made the following observations:- "11. Now coming to the challenge to the impugned notice as raised by the petitioner. Having perused the record as also the decisions as relied upon by Mr. Mistri, we are persuaded to accept Mr. Mistri's contentions that respondent No. 1 could not have issued the impugned notices under section 148A(b) and pass an order thereon under sub-section (d), as also issue notice under section 148 of the Act to the assessee as it was a non-existent entity. In such context, Mr. Mistri's reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Pr. CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. is apposite. In such deci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said case before notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on September 26, 2013, the scheme of amalgamation had been approved by the High Court with effect from April 1, 2012. It has been observed that the assessment order passed for the assessment year 2012-2013 in the name of non-existing entity is a substantive illegality and would not be procedural violation of section 292B of the Act. The Supreme Court in its aforesaid decision, has quoted an extract from its decision in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. CIT. The Supreme Court has also referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Spice Enfotainment Ltd. and observed that in its decision the Delhi High Court had held that assessment order passed against non-existing company would be void. Such defect cannot be treated as procedural defect and mere participation of the appellant would be of no effect as there is no estoppel against law. Such a defect cannot be cured by invoking the provisions under section 292B. The Supreme Court had also taken note of the decision in CIT v. Spice Enfotainment Ltd. which was followed by the Delhi High Court in matters, viz., CIT v. Dimension A....