Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

A notice to a non-existent entity is a substantive illegality, not a procedural lapse: Delhi High Court Quashes Income Tax Notices

30 September 2024 1:06 PM

By: sayum


Delhi High Court in Religare Enterprises Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax quashed reassessment notices and orders issued in the name of a dissolved amalgamating company. The court held that any assessment or notice issued to a non-existent entity after amalgamation is void ab initio, following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd..

Religare Securities Limited (RSL) merged with Religare Enterprises Limited (REL) through a scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) with an effective date of April 1, 2016. RSL had duly informed the tax authorities of this amalgamation in December 2017. Despite this, in April 2021, the Income Tax Department issued a reassessment notice to RSL, a company that no longer existed. After a previous quashing of the reassessment notice, the department continued the proceedings and issued subsequent orders in the name of the amalgamated entity, REL.

REL challenged the proceedings, contending that notices and orders issued in the name of a non-existent entity are invalid under the law.

The court primarily focused on whether the reassessment notices issued to a dissolved company (RSL) are valid under the Income Tax Act. The petitioners argued that any notice issued to a non-existent company following its dissolution under a merger or amalgamation scheme is void. They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., which held that tax proceedings initiated in the name of a dissolved company cannot be cured under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Income Tax Department contended that the defect of issuing a notice to the dissolved company was procedural and curable under Section 292B. They also argued that the amalgamated entity (REL) participated in the proceedings, and thus, the defect should not invalidate the reassessment.

The court ruled that issuing notices to a company that has ceased to exist after an amalgamation constitutes a jurisdictional error, not merely a procedural one. The bench noted:

"The issuance of notices in the name of a non-existent entity is a substantive illegality and cannot be rectified under Section 292B."

The court further explained that participation by the amalgamated entity (REL) in the tax proceedings does not cure the jurisdictional defect. The judges emphasized that tax authorities must ensure that notices are properly addressed to the correct legal entity, especially after being informed of a merger.

Relying heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., the court reaffirmed that any assessment or notice addressed to a dissolved entity is legally unsustainable.

The Delhi High Court quashed the reassessment notices and orders issued in the name of RSL, holding them to be void and without jurisdiction. The ruling reinforces the principle that tax authorities cannot issue notices or conduct assessments against dissolved companies, as it is a violation of procedural and substantive legal standards.

Date of Decision: September 26, 2024

Religare Enterprises Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax​.

Latest Legal News