TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 124
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....already been merged and amalgamated with ISS Facility Services India Private Ltd being the petitioner herein, with effect from 1.4.2012 pursuant to a scheme of Amalgamation and Arrangement approved by the High Court of Bombay vide order dated 16.8.2013. 4. Despite such amalgamation, the impugned show cause notice has been issued by the respondent GST Authorities in the name of ISS Integrated Facility Services India Private Limited, being the transferor company. 5. Learned counsel contends that issuance of notice and passing of adjudication order in the name of a non-existent entity post amalgamation is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to quashed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment dated 5.5.2025 passed by the Hon'ble High Court at Bombay in petitioner's own case, whereby the impugned order and the recovery notice has been quashed in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi -Vs- Maruti Suzuki India Limited reported in 2019 (7) TMI 1449, to contend that issuance of notice and adjudication against a non-existent entity is non est and void ab initio. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....make a return of income. The notices were served upon the successor Maharaja and the assessment order was passed describing the assessee as "His Highness... late Maharaja of Patiala". The successor appealed against the assessment contending that since the notices were sent in the name of the Maharaja of Patiala and not to him as the legal representative of the Maharaja of Patiala, the assessments were illegal. The Bombay High Court held that the successor Maharaja was a legal representative of the deceased and while it would have been better to so describe him in the notice, the notice was not bad merely because it omitted to state that it was served in that capacity. Following these two decisions, this Court in Jai Prakash Singh held that an omission to serve or any defect in the service of notices provided by procedural provisions does not efface or erase the liability to pay tax where the liability is created by a distinct substantive provision. The omission or defect may render the order irregular but not void or illegal. Jai Prakash Singh and the two decisions that it placed reliance upon were evidently based upon the specific facts. Jai Prakash Singh involved a situa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs." 10. The petitioner relies upon paragraph nos. 15 to 17 of the Kamala Muthiah as the erstwhile Director of M/s. M. Ct. M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd (Now Dissolved) -Versus- The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax which are reproduced below: "15. In the instant case, assessee company had demerged and the appellant herein is the erstwhile Director of the assessee company which was dissolved pursuant to the demerger. This fact was also informed to the assessing Officer. In fact, there was also a dissolution of the company without winding up. Thereafter, the respondent Department issued notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 for reopening the assessment of M/s. M. Ct. M. Corporation Private Limited, which was no longer in existence. The dissolution of a company without winding up would entail distinct consequence from a company which is struck off from the Register of Companies in Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited. It has been observed that when there is a non-existing company, which would be pursuant to dissolution or on amalgamation, the Assessing Officer cannot seek to proceed against such a company. 16. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the taxpayer in the Income Tax Return but the entire consideration had been suppressed by them by not filing the ST3 return for the said period and did not give any plausible explanation for the lapse of non-filing ST3 return. 17. Despite repeated requests being made for furnishing relevant documents to demonstrate with regard to the non-filing of the ST3 return, no documents were furnished. Thus the transferor company being the tax payer, is liable to pay service tax including cess of Rs. 4,04,39,695/-. 18. Prior to the issuance of the show cause notice, the tax payer did not bring to the knowledge of the authority concerned with regard to the amalgamation. Only after filing of the reply to the show cause notice, it has come to the knowledge of the authority concerned with regard to the Scheme of Amalgamation. 19. The taxpayer continues to maintain the registration with the Kolkata jurisdiction as a result of which the taxpayer has been foisted with the liability to the pay the service tax. 20. It is further submitted by the CGST Authority that despite granting liberty of personal hearing, the taxpayer has chosen not to appear before the concerned authority. 21. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case. However, and notwithstanding those disclosures having been duly made, the second respondent proceeded to issue yet another SCN in the interregnum, for FY 2018-2019 on 03 December 2023. This notice too was in the name of the Amalgamating Company. 8. Despite the petitioner, thus, having clearly and in unequivocal terms informed and having apprised the respondents that Digilife Distribution and Marketing Services Limited could no longer be viewed as existing in law, the respondents proceeded to frame a final order on 27 April 2024 in the name of the Amalgamating Company." 24. Learned counsel for the CGST Authorities also relies upon Sub Rules 7 and 8 of the Rule 4 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, which is reproduced below: "7. Every registered assess, who ceased to provide the taxable service for which he is registered, shall surrender his registration certificate immediately. 8. On receipt of the certificate under sub-rule (7), the Superintendent of Central Excise shall ensure that the assessee has paid all monies due to the Central Government under the provisions of the Act, and the rules and the notifications issued thereunder, and thereupon c....