Reassessment notice on non-existent entity after demerger unjustified: SC

MCTM then approached the Supreme Court against the High Court's order

Supreme Court, SC
(Photo: Shutterstock)
Bhavini Mishra New Delhi
2 min read Last Updated : Nov 19 2024 | 9:33 PM IST

Don't want to miss the best from Business Standard?

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that issuing a reassessment notice to a non-existent entity after its demerger is unwarranted and unjustified.
 
The court quashed the reassessment notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act dated March 28, 2007, and the consequent assessment order issued to the non-existent MCTM Corporation Private Limited after its demerger, as per a final dissolution order of the Madras High Court.
 
MCTM Corporation Private Limited was demerged through a dissolution order passed by the Madras High Court in 2006. Subsequently, the Income Tax Department issued a notice under Section 148 and initiated income-escaping assessment proceedings against the non-existent company in 2007.
 
MCTM filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the income-escaping assessment. However, the High Court dismissed the writ, stating that MCTM had an alternative remedy available under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
 
MCTM then approached the Supreme Court against the High Court's order.
 
The apex court ruled in favour of MCTM and quashed the income-escaping assessment, stating that once a company is amalgamated or merged with another entity, it ceases to exist, and any subsequent assessment order passed in the name of the non-existent entity would be without jurisdiction. The court also noted that the High Court should have exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
 
Manish Garg, Lead - Transfer Pricing and Litigation, AKM Global, said the ruling provides much-needed clarity, emphasising that fresh proceedings cannot be initiated against a company that has merged, amalgamated, or ceased to exist.
 
"The tax department often issues notices for fresh proceedings against such non-existent companies, creating significant challenges for taxpayers and wasting time for both parties. In such cases, a writ petition becomes a preferable option for taxpayers seeking quick relief. This ruling from the apex court will now serve as a strong precedent for taxpayers when arguing similar writs before High Courts. It will also help reduce litigation involving such matters," he said.
 
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

Topics :Supreme CourtMerger and Acquisition

First Published: Nov 19 2024 | 9:33 PM IST

Next Story