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
HomeGSTMadras High Court Quashes Order Passed Against Non-Existent Entity Post-Amalgamation Despite Prior...

Madras High Court Quashes Order Passed Against Non-Existent Entity Post-Amalgamation Despite Prior Intimation

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Madras High Court has quashed the order passed against non-existent entity post-amalgamation despite prior intimation.

The bench of Justice Mohammed Shaffiq has observed that it is not permissible for the department to issue a show cause notice in the name of a company which stood amalgamated and proceed to complete the adjudication, in the name of the amalgamated/non-existent company.

The petitioner/assessee, Larsen and Toubro Limited has raised the issue whether it is permissible for the respondent authority to issue a show cause notice in the name of a company which stood amalgamated and proceed to complete the adjudication, in the name of the amalgamated/non-existent company.

The department  submitted that the respondent authority was not aware of the amalgamation. When the show cause notice was pointed, to state that the officer was informed and aware of the factum of amalgamation, the learned counsel for respondent would request liberty to proceed afresh against the resultant company.

The court quashed the proceedings against the amalgamated entity.

Case Details

Case Title: M/s.Larsen and Toubro Limited Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise

Case No.: W.P. Nos.23194 and 23200 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.24499 of 2021

Date: 17.04.2025

Counsel For Petitioner: G.Natarajan

Counsel For Respondent: Sai Srujan Tayi

Read More: Landmark Case Analysis: Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan – The Genesis of Workplace Sexual Harassment Law in India

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Cash Refund Loses Its Character as Tax or Interest; 10% Pre-Deposit Required for GST Appeal: GSTAT Registry

The GST Appellate Tribunal’s Hyderabad Registry has opined that an amount received by a...

Can Disputed ITC Claim Amount to “Fraud or Suppression”? Allahabad HC Stays S. 74 Proceedings Against Samsung Display 

The Allahabad High Court has prima facie questioned the Revenue’s attempt to invoke the...

Bombay High Court Questions 6 Month Limit Under GST Notification for S. 16(5) ITC Benefit

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has raised an important question concerning...

More like this

Cash Refund Loses Its Character as Tax or Interest; 10% Pre-Deposit Required for GST Appeal: GSTAT Registry

The GST Appellate Tribunal’s Hyderabad Registry has opined that an amount received by a...

Can Disputed ITC Claim Amount to “Fraud or Suppression”? Allahabad HC Stays S. 74 Proceedings Against Samsung Display 

The Allahabad High Court has prima facie questioned the Revenue’s attempt to invoke the...

Bombay High Court Questions 6 Month Limit Under GST Notification for S. 16(5) ITC Benefit

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has raised an important question concerning...