Jsw Steel Coated Products Limited v. National Faceless Assessment Centre Assessmnet Unit Care Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4296 OF 2024 JSW Steel Coated Products Limited .. Petitioner

Versus

National Faceless Assessment Centre (Assessment Unit) & Ors.

.. Respondents Mr.Gopal Mundhra a/w Parth Parikh, Swati Agrawal i/b Economic Laws Practice, Advocates for the Petitioner. Digitally signed by UTKARSH KAKASAHEB BHALERAO Date:

2026.03.09 18:10:28 +0530 UTKARSH KAKASAHEB BHALERAO MrVikas T. Khanchandani, Advocate for the Respondents.

CORAM

: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.

DATE : MARCH 04, 2026 P. C.

1.

Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2.

The above Writ Petition challenges the order of assessment dated 21.03.2024 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B, of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the "Act"), the Notice of demand dated 21.03.2024 issued under Section 156, and the Penalty Notice dated 21.03.2024 issued under Section 274 read with Section 270A of

the Act, in respect of Assessment Year 2022-23, inter alia, on the ground that such notices were issued, and the impugned assessment order was passed, in the name of a non-existent entity. 3.

Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner in the present case ('JSW Steel Coated Products Limited') is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the manufacturing of steel including special steel products. Vide Order dated 19.05.2023, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) approved the scheme of amalgamation of JSW Vallabh Tinplate Private Limited ("erstwhile/transferor company') with the Petitioner, whereby the former company got amalgamated into the Petitioner. Pursuant to the NCLT Order, Form No. INC-28 for notice of order of the Tribunal was filed with the Registrar of Companies ('RoC') on 26.06.2023. 4.

It is submitted by the Petitioner that pursuant to the amalgamation, the Petitioner vide its letter dated 29.06.2023 (annexed as Exhibit H to the Writ Petition) duly communicated the Authorities about the amalgamation of the erstwhile/transferor company named 'JSW Vallabh Tinplate Private Limited' (hereinafter referred to as "JSW Vallabh Tinplate").

5.

Meanwhile, for A.Y.2022-23, Respondent No.1 issued Notice dated 02.06.2023 under Section 143(2) of the Act in the name of JSW Vallabh Tinplate intimating that its case has been selected for faceless scrutiny. Further, despite the fact of amalgamation being duly communicated by the Petitioner, Respondent No.1, vide Notice dated 18.10.2023 (annexed as Exhibit I to the Writ Petition), proceeded with the assessment proceeding against JSW Vallabh Tinplate on its PAN, in terms of Section 143(2) and 144B of the Act for A.Y.2022-23. The Petitioner, however, was unable to view the notice dated 18.10.2023 owing to an error encountered while downloading a copy of the notice. The Petitioner, thereafter, filed a letter dated 03.11.2023 apprising Respondent No.1 of the aforesaid error along with the screenshot of the error. In addition, the Petitioner, also registered a grievance on 25.01.2024 with respect to the said error.

6.

Respondent No.1 without considering the preliminary objection of the Petitioner that JSW Vallabh Tinplate is not in existence, proceeded with the issuance of another notices dated 27.01.2024 and 07.02.2024 (annexed as Exhibit K and L, respectively, to the Writ Petition), in the name of JSW Vallabh Tinplate, in terms

of Section 142(1) of Act seeking production of various accounts/ documents/ information. The Petitioner, thereafter, vide its letter dated 08.02.2024 (annexed as Exhibit N, to the Writ Petition), once again requested Respondent No.1 not to proceed with the assessment proceedings in light of the fact that JSW Vallabh Tinplate is no longer in existence.

7.

Subsequently, Respondent No. 1 issued a show cause notice dated 01.03.2024 (annexed as Exhibit O to the Writ Petition) in the name of JSW Vallabh Tinplate. The Petitioner vide its letter dated 06.03.2024 (annexed as Exhibit P to the Writ Petition) responded to the said notice under its own name and seal.

8.

Respondent No.1, thereafter, passed the Assessment Order on 21.03.2024 under Section 143(3) of the Act (annexed as Exhibit A to the Writ Petition) in the name of 'JSW Vallabh Tinplate Private Limited' in respect of AY 2022-23. Further, the Notice of demand under section 156 of the Act (annexed as Exhibit B to the Writ Petition) and the notice for initiating the penalty proceedings (annexed as Exhibit C to the Writ Petition) were also issued in the name of 'JSW Vallabh Tinplate Private Limited'.

9.

In this factual backdrop, Mr. Gopal Mundhra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended as under:- (a) That upon a scheme of amalgamation being sanctioned, the amalgamating company/transferor company ceases to exist in the eyes of law as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd v. CIT [(1990) 53 Taxman 92 (SC)] and PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [(2019) 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC)]. Once, such transferor company ceases to exist, it cannot fall within the definition of a 'person' as defined under Section 2(31) of the Act. Consequently, no proceedings can be conducted in respect of a 'person' which no longer exists. Thus, the notices and the impugned Assessment Order having been issued in the name of a nonexistent entity, were void ab initio and bad in law. In support of this contention, Mr. Mundhra relied upon the following judicial precedents:- (i) Spice Entertainment Ltd. v. CST [(2012) 247 CTR 500 (Delhi HC)] (ii) Alok Knit Exports Ltd. v. DCIT [WP No. 2742/2019 decided on 10th August 2021 (Bom.)]

(iii) New Age Buildtech Private Limited v. NFAC [WP/5308 /2022 decided on 26th April 2023 (Bom.)] (iv) J. M. Mhatre Infra Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India [WPL/16514/2023 decided on 16th December 2025 (Bom.)] (v) Vahanvati Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [WP No. 3562/2019 decided on 22nd September 2021 (Bom.)] (vi) Godrej Projects Development Ltd. v. DCIT [WPL No. 21009/2021 decided on 27th October 2021 (Bom.)] (vii) CIT v. Intel Technology India (P) Ltd [(2016) 380 ITR 272 (Kar.)] (viii) PCIT v. Nokia Solutions & Network India (P) Ltd. [(2018) 402 ITR 21 (Del)].

(b) That the Respondents failed to follow the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [(2019) 107 taxmann.com 375] wherein it was held that any Assessment Order issued against a non-existing company is without jurisdiction.

10.

On the other hand, Mr. Vikas T. Khanchandani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, relying upon the Affidavit in Reply dated 31.07.2025, made the following submissions:- (a) The initiation as well as completion of the assessment proceedings were valid in law, and the assessment would not be rendered invalid merely because it was framed in the name of JSW Vallabh Tinplate.

(b) In support of the above, the learned counsel for the Revenue placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd. [(2022) SCC OnLine SC 407] and the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Vedanta Limited vs. DCIT [(2021) 438 ITR 680 (Mad)].

(c) The Petitioner had failed to duly and effectively intimate the fact of amalgamation to the Assessing Officer, and therefore, the proceedings could not be said to be without jurisdiction. 11.

In rejoinder, Mr. Mundhra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, specifically rebutted the arguments

advanced by the Respondent, in view of the facts mentioned hereinabove.

12.

We have heard both the parties at length and have also perused the records produced before us and also the affidavit in reply filed by the Respondents. It is an undisputed fact that the Petitioner had made Respondent No. 1 aware about the amalgamation of "JSW Vallabh Tinplate Private Limited" with the Petitioner during the assessment proceeding for A.Y.2022-23. Despite the aforesaid, Respondent No.1 issued the Notices under Section 142(1) in the name of JSW Vallabh Tinplate; proceeded to issue the Show Cause Notice in the name of JSW Vallabh Tinplate; and ultimately even passed the order of assessment, issued notice of demand under Section 156 and issued a penalty notice, all in the name of JSW Vallabh Tinplate. 13.

We find that the issue regarding the invalidity of a notice issued to a non-existent entity is no longer res integra and is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner Income Tax Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra), wherein it was inter alia held as under:-

"36. In the present case, despite the fact that the assessing officer was informed of the amalgamating company having ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation, the jurisdictional notice was issued only in its name. The basis on which jurisdiction was invoked was fundamentally at odds with the legal principle that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation. Participation in the proceedings by the appellant in the circumstances cannot operate as an estoppel against law. This position now holds the field in view of the judgment of a coordinate Bench of two learned Judges which dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in Spice Enfotainment [CIT v. Spice Enfotainment Ltd., (2020) 18 SCC 353] on 2-11-2017. The decision in Spice Enfotainment [CIT v. Spice Enfotainment Ltd., (2020) 18 SCC 353] has been followed in the case of the respondent while dismissing the special leave petition for AY 2011-2012. In doing so, this Court has relied on the decision in Spice Enfotainment [CIT v. Spice Enfotainment Ltd., (2020) 18 SCC 353].

37.

We find no reason to take a different view. There is a value which the Court must abide by in promoting the interest of certainty in tax litigation. The view which has been taken by this Court in relation to the respondent for AY 2011-2012 must, in our view be adopted in respect of the present appeal which relates to AY 2012-2013. Not doing so will only result in uncertainty and displacement of settled expectations. There is a significant value which must attach to observing the requirement of consistency and certainty. Individual affairs are conducted and business decisions are made in the expectation of consistency, uniformity and certainty. To detract from those principles is neither expedient nor desirable."

14.

We find that the decision in the case of Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd. (supra) is liable to be appreciated bearing in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case including the conduct of the assessee therein. It was those facts which appear to have weighed upon the Supreme Court to hold against the assessee. The present case is clearly

distinguishable from the facts in the case of Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd. (supra) because (i) in that case, there was no intimation by the resultant company i.e., Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd., regarding the amalgamation of Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd. into them, to the Income Tax Authorities; (ii) the Assessment Order was made in the name of both the amalgamating company and the resultant company; and (iii) the resultant company also participated in the assessment proceeding holding itself out as the amalgamating company.

15.

In the present case, however, the fact of amalgamation was duly intimated to the Respondents. The Petitioner had, at the very threshold, objected to the continuation of the assessment proceeding in the name of a non-existent entity and had consistently maintained such objection throughout. In this regard, we also refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Pharmazell (India) Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai [2024 (7) TMI 1436 (Madras High Court)]; the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in International Hospital Limited vs. DCIT Circle 12 & Ors. [TS-715-HC-2024 (DEL)]; and a decision of this Court in Reliance Industries Ltd V/S P. L. Roongta [(2025) 171 taxmann.com 467 (Bombay)] wherein the

ratio of Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd. (supra) was distinguished on the ground of prior intimation of amalgamation to the Assessing Officer and the conduct of the assessee throughout the proceedings. We find that in the present case the Petitioner had duly informed the Respondents of the amalgamation and had objected to the jurisdiction at the earliest possible opportunity. Hence, the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd. (supra) is wholly inapplicable to the factual situation in the present matter. 16.

We find that the reliance placed by the Respondent on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Vedanta Limited (supra) is also misplaced. It appears that in the case of Vedanta Limited (supra), the error pertained merely to multiple changes of the name of an existing company without any change in the PAN and a corrigendum was also issued to rectify the error and the proceedings were continued. However, in the present case, the assessment has been framed in the name, and PAN, of a company which had admittedly ceased to exist upon amalgamation. The said decision in Vedanta Limited (supra) is therefore clearly distinguishable and does not assist the Respondents.

17.

Having dealt with decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd. (supra.), and the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Vedanta Limited (supra.), we are of the view that Respondent No.1 has committed a jurisdictional error by issuing notices and passing the Order of Assessment in the name of a non-existent entity. It is no longer res integra that proceedings undertaken in the name of a non-existent entity are void. We draw support from the following:- (a) The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. CIT (supra) which held that when two companies are merged/amalgamated and are so joined, as to form a third company or one is absorbed into one or blended with another, the amalgamating company loses its existence;

(b) The judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Spice Entertainment Ltd v. CST (supra), which held that once the factum of amalgamation of a company had been brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer, despite which the proceedings are continued and an Order of Assessment is passed in the name of a non-existent company, the Order of Assessment would be void;

(c) The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) which held that if despite informing the assessing officer, the jurisdictional notice was issued in the name of the erstwhile company, then the basis on which the jurisdiction was invoked was fundamentally at odds with the legal principle that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approval of the scheme of amalgamation, and participation in the proceedings by the assessee cannot operate as an estoppel against law;

(d) Consequent to the above, this Court has consistently held that issuance of notice/order in the name of a non-existent entity is bad in law. We have recently endorsed this view in the case of J. M. Mhatre Infra Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile J M Mhatre, Partnership firm) v. UOI [WPL 16514 OF 2023 decided on 16.12.2025] and Paras Defence and Space Technologies Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 15(1)(1) and Others [Writ Petition No. 4934 of 2022 decided on 27th January 2026].

18.

Thus, in our view, considering the facts of the present case, on the yardstick of the aforestated well settled propositions of law, the

impugned notices issued under Section 142(1), the Show Cause Notice issued on 01.03.2024, the impugned Order of Assessment passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B dated 21.03.2024, and the consequential notice issued raising a demand under Section 156, as well as the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 270A, all being in the name of a non-existent entity [i. e. JSW Vallabh Tinplate], are void and bad in the eyes of law. 19.

Hence the following order:- (i) The present Writ Petition stands allowed. (ii) The impugned Order of Assessment passed under Section 143(3) dated 21.03.2024 and the consequential notice issued raising demand under Section 156 and the notice proposing to impose penalties are all hereby quashed and set aside.

20.

We clarify that we have allowed the above Writ Petition only on the ground that the notices issued under Section 142(1) as well as the Assessment Order is passed in the name of the amalgamating company which was not in existence on the date when the said notices

and the order was passed. Hence this is the ground on which we set aside the order and all notices emanating therefrom. We clarify that nothing in this order shall preclude the Revenue from initiating fresh proceedings against the Petitioner (the amalgamated company), if the Revenue is so entitled in law.

21.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms and the Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

22.

Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by [FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]