Introduction
In HCL Infosystems Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax[i], the Delhi High Court addressed whether tax proceedings can be initiated or continued against a company that has ceased to exist due to amalgamation. The High Court analysed the facts of the case in light of relevant legal provisions and established precedents, and subsequently quashed the Show Cause Notice (‘SCN’) and final order issued against the amalgamating company, affirming that legal actions against a defunct entity are impermissible under the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 (‘CGST Act’).
Brief Facts
HCL Infosystems Ltd. (‘amalgamated company’) merged with Digilife Distribution and Marketing Services Ltd. (‘amalgamating company’) under a scheme of arrangement approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’) on 10.08.2022. Upon amalgamation, the amalgamating company ceased to exist. Both companies notified the Registrar of Companies (RoC) about the approved scheme. The amalgamating company also applied for cancellation of its GST registration, citing transfer of business due to amalgamation. Consequently, the GST registration was suspended by the authorities.
The amalgamated company filed Form GST ITC-02, along with a Chartered Accountant’s certificate, seeking the transfer of the Input Tax Credit (ITC) balance from the amalgamating company to itself. Despite being notified of the amalgamation, the authorities issued SCNs dated 29.09.2023 for FY 2017-18 and 03.12.2023 for FY 2018-19, both addressed to the defunct amalgamating company. The amalgamated company replied to the first SCN for FY 2017-18, apprising the authorities about the merger and the non-existence of the amalgamating company.
Following this detailed response, the proceedings for FY 2017-18 were dropped. However, despite explicit disclosures regarding the non-existence of the amalgamating company, authorities subsequently issued a final order dated 27.04.2024 for FY 2018-19, again in the name of the defunct amalgamating company. Aggrieved by the SCN dated 03.12.2023 and the final order dated 27.04.2024, the amalgamated company filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the legality of proceedings against a defunct entity.
Held
The Court quashed both the SCN dated 03.12.2023 and the final order dated 27.04.2024, holding that proceedings against the amalgamating company were impermissible under the CGST Act. The Court ruled that any proceedings against a dissolved company, which ceased to exist in the eyes of the law due to amalgamation, were inherently void ab initio.
The Court clarified that s. 160 of the CGST Act, analogous to s. 292B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, permits rectification of procedural defects in tax notices only. Crucially, the Court emphasized that initiating proceedings against a non-existent entity is not a procedural defect but a substantive illegality. Therefore, s. 160 of the CGST Act could not validate the SCN or final order in this case.
Addressing the respondents’ reliance on s. 87 of the CGST Act, the Court clarified that this section only governs the allocation of tax liabilities arising from transactions between amalgamating entities prior to amalgamation. It expressly does not authorize initiating or continuing proceedings against a non-existent entity.
The Court observed that authorities continued issuing notices despite clear prior disclosures regarding amalgamation, indicating negligence by the tax department. Relying on the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in this context in Maruti Suzuki[ii], the Court affirmed that any order issued in the name of a dissolved entity is a nullity. It further observed that no revenue loss would occur since the liabilities of the dissolved company automatically shifted to the amalgamated entity under the law.
Our Analysis
This judgment is significant as it reaffirms the foundational legal principle that entities dissolved by operation of law, such as through amalgamation, cease to have any legal identity and, therefore, cannot be pursued legally. Echoing the settled jurisprudence articulated by the Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki (Supra), the Court clearly distinguished between mere procedural lapses, which are curable, and fundamental jurisdictional errors, which render proceedings void ab initio. This decision also highlights a significant aspect of corporate law: the automatic transfer of liabilities from the amalgamating entity to the amalgamated entity, negating any perceived risk of revenue loss.
The decision sets a valuable precedent by expressly rejecting the invocation of ss. 160 and 87 of the CGST Act to legitimise proceedings against non-existent entities. From a broader perspective, the ruling reiterates that once an entity ceases to exist legally, the principle of legal personality precludes any judicial or administrative action against it. This clarity not only supports corporate restructuring efforts but also enhances investor confidence by ensuring predictability and fairness in the application of tax laws.
Ultimately, this decision emphasizes the balance that must be maintained between efficient revenue collection and respect for established legal doctrines, ensuring that legal proceedings are grounded in factual and legal realities rather than administrative convenience.
End Notes
[i] 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8287 dated 21.11.2024.
[ii] Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, (2020) 18 SCC 331.
For a deeper understanding of how the law treats non-existent entities, through the lens of judicial precedent, statutory interpretation, and doctrinal analysis, read our earlier insight:
Chasing Shadows: Legal Proceedings Against Non-Existent Persons by Srishty Jaura
Authored by the Metalegal Editorial Board, the views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal advice or opinion.
More Insights
24-07-2026
10
min read
‘Shylockian’ Lending is ‘Squeezing of Blood’: NCLT Moves Beyond Debt & Default to Reject a Section 7 Application
In a rare departure from the conventional debt-and-default enquiry under section 7 of the IBC, the NCLT, Kochi Bench rejected the financial creditors' petition after characterizing the underlying arrangement as a ‘Shylockian system’ of lending. This court ruling discusses Shylockian lending and examines the strength of the Tribunal's focus on the economic substance of the transaction against established legal principles governing admission under section 7 of the IBC.
10-07-2026
7
min read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.
22-06-2026
8
min read
Claim Admission is not Debt Acknowledgement: Supreme Court on RP’s Role & Limitation under the IBC
Can admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act? In Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, holding that claim admission during CIRP is merely a statutory claim-verification process and not an acknowledgement of debt. The ruling clarifies the RP’s non-adjudicatory role and reinforces important principles governing limitation under the IBC.