Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeGSTGST Notice Must Be Issued To Amalgamated Company After Merger: Allahabad High...

GST Notice Must Be Issued To Amalgamated Company After Merger: Allahabad High Court

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench has quashed a GST show cause notice issued in the name of RedBus India Private Limited after its merger with MakeMyTrip (India) Private Limited, holding that the notice should have been issued in the name of the amalgamated company.

The Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai set aside the notice. However, it granted the tax department liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

Buy Now: 210+ GST Judgments E-Magazine – October 2026

The dispute arose from proceedings under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, relating to the financial year 2021–2022.

According to the factual position recorded by the Court, RedBus India Private Limited merged with MakeMyTrip (India) Private Limited with effect from February 1, 2026.

The petitioner communicated the merger to the department on June 12, 2026, through a submission made in response to a show cause notice under Section 73.

Despite this communication, a fresh show cause notice dated August 3, 2026, was issued in the name of RedBus India Private Limited. MakeMyTrip consequently approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petitioner sought the quashing of the notice issued in Form GST DRC-01, along with an accompanying communication of the same date titled “Notice for framing order in remanded cases”.

It also requested a declaration that proceedings initiated pursuant to the notice were void ab initio. Pending disposal of the petition, it sought a stay on further proceedings, including the passing of any order pursuant to the challenged notice.

The High Court’s brief order does not elaborate on the earlier remand proceedings, the underlying tax allegations or the amount involved.

The petitioner argued that, once the merger had taken effect, the show cause notice should have been issued in the name of the amalgamated company, MakeMyTrip (India) Private Limited.

The Court’s decision turned on the identity of the company to which the fresh notice was addressed, in circumstances where the merger had already taken effect and had been communicated to the department.

Accordingly, the Bench quashed and set aside the show cause notice and disposed of the writ petition.

The Court expressly preserved the department’s liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The order therefore grants relief against the challenged notice without deciding the underlying tax liability for financial year 2021–2022.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Read More: Annual Reconciliation Can’t Reset GST Refund Limitation: GSTAT

Nikhil Bhandari
Nikhil Bhandari
Nikhil Bhandari is a Chartered Accountant and a Indirect Tax professional with over 5 years of post-qualification experience in tax advisory, compliance management, and tax process optimization. Associated with SDU LLP since August 2015 spanning his articleship through to his current role as Manager Nikhil has uniquely navigated India’s transition from the legacy tax regime into the GST era.His expertise encompasses both strategic advisory and Indirect Tax litigation, where he represents clients in complex disputes across the manufacturing, service, and e-commerce sectors. By providing high-level counsel to corporate leadership, he ensures that tax positions are not only robust and compliant but also structured for long-term operational efficiency.Beyond his core practice, Nikhil is a proactive contributor to the GST ecosystem. He is dedicated to tracking and analyzing judicial precedents from various High Courts and the Supreme Court, fostering greater clarity and ease of access to tax intelligence for the wider professional community.

Latest articles

Annual Reconciliation Can’t Reset GST Refund Limitation: GSTAT

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Delhi State Bench, has held that...

Intent To Evade Tax Not Expressly Required For Unaccounted Goods U/S 130(1)(ii): GSTAT 

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), State Bench at Lucknow, has held...

Customs Can’t Club Demands To Meet Rs. 1 Crore Appeal Limit: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the Customs Department cannot aggregate demands arising...

Change In Goods’ Destination Alone Can’t Justify GST Penalty Without Evidence Of Tax Evasion: GSTAT

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Lucknow, has dismissed a departmental appeal...

More like this

Annual Reconciliation Can’t Reset GST Refund Limitation: GSTAT

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Delhi State Bench, has held that...

Intent To Evade Tax Not Expressly Required For Unaccounted Goods U/S 130(1)(ii): GSTAT 

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), State Bench at Lucknow, has held...

Customs Can’t Club Demands To Meet Rs. 1 Crore Appeal Limit: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the Customs Department cannot aggregate demands arising...