Rajasthan High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Existent Company in Larsen & Toubro Case

In a significant judgment impacting GST litigation, corporate restructuring, and GST registration compliance, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan dealt with a crucial procedural question:

Can GST authorities pass an adjudication order against a company that has ceased to exist due to amalgamation?

The case was filed by Larsen And Toubro Ltd. (L&T) and addresses important issues concerning GST registration cancellation, amalgamation under GST law, jurisdictional defects, and validity of GST demand orders.

This ruling provides much-needed clarity for businesses undergoing mergers and acquisitions.

Facts of the Case

Larsen & Toubro had a subsidiary named L&T Hydrocarbon Engineering Ltd. (LTHE). Pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), LTHE merged with its parent company, Larsen & Toubro Ltd.

Key points:

• The merger was approved on 28.01.2022.

• The appointed date of amalgamation was 01.04.2021.

• After the merger, LTHE ceased to exist as a separate legal entity.

• The GST department was informed of the amalgamation.

Despite this, the GST department passed adjudication orders in Form GST DRC-07 in the name of LTHE — the non-existent company — under its old GST registration number.

L&T approached the Rajasthan High Court challenging these GST orders, arguing that they were legally invalid.

Petitioner’s Arguments: Orders Against a Non-Existent Entity Are Void

L&T’s primary argument was straightforward but powerful:

Once a company is amalgamated and ceases to exist, any order passed in its name is a jurisdictional defect and void.

The company relied on the Supreme Court decision in PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., where it was held that an assessment order passed against a non-existent entity is invalid in law.

The petitioner argued:

• The transferor company (LTHE) lost its legal existence after amalgamation.

• The department had been informed about the merger.

• Passing a GST demand order against a non-existent entity violates settled legal principles.

• The defect is not procedural but jurisdictional.

L&T further submitted that the Revenue would not suffer any prejudice because fresh proceedings could be initiated against the surviving entity under the correct GST registration.

Revenue’s Stand: GST Registration Was Still Active

The Revenue defended its action by arguing:

• The old GST registration number of LTHE was still active on the GST portal.

• The registration had not been formally cancelled under Sections 28 and 29 of the CGST Act.

• Since the GST number existed in the system, orders were issued against it.

• The responsibility to amend or cancel registration lies with the taxpayer.

The department essentially argued that the procedural lapse, if any, was attributable to the petitioner.

Legal Issues Before the Court

The High Court examined the following key questions:

1. Can GST authorities pass orders against a company that has ceased to exist?

2. Does non-cancellation of GST registration justify issuing orders against a merged entity?

3. What happens to GST registration after amalgamation?

4. Is such a defect curable or jurisdictional?

The Court analyzed Sections 28 and 29 of the CGST Act, which deal with:

• Amendment of GST registration

• Cancellation or suspension of GST registration

• Business transfer and amalgamation

Also read our other article: https://www.statvixadvisors.com/when-procedure-kills-justice-a-sensible-gst-ruling-from-the-andhra-pradesh-high-court

Court’s Legal Reasoning

The Court acknowledged that GST law is relatively new and may have administrative gaps. However, it emphasized a settled legal principle:

An order cannot be passed against a non-existent entity.

Once amalgamation takes effect:

• The transferor company legally ceases to exist.

• All rights and liabilities vest in the transferee company.

• The earlier legal identity disappears.

The Court observed that once the department was informed of the merger, it could not ignore that fact and continue to issue orders in the name of the old entity.

Importantly, the Court introduced a practical and balanced approach.

Deemed Cancellation Principle

The Court held that:

• Once information of amalgamation is received by the department,

• The old GST registration should be treated as deemed cancelled from the effective date of merger.

This interpretation bridges the gap between corporate law and GST procedural law.

Balancing Revenue Protection

The Court did not allow the petitioner to escape liability.

It clarified:

• Tax demands relating to the earlier GST number can be uploaded under the new GST registration of the surviving company.

• The surviving company will have to address and contest such demands in accordance with law.

Thus, while protecting procedural legality, the Court safeguarded revenue interests.

Final Directions of the Court

The Rajasthan High Court issued the following directions:

1. The department must upload the impugned GST orders under the new GST registration number of Larsen & Toubro Ltd within one month.

2. The petitioner is free to challenge the orders through statutory remedies.

3. The earlier orders passed in the name of the non-existent company shall become redundant.

4. Limitation issues will not arise in view of Section 75(3) of the CGST Act.

5. The matter was disposed of accordingly.

Why This Judgment Is Important

This ruling has wide implications for:

• GST litigation

• Corporate mergers and acquisitions

• GST com pliance during restructuring

• Jurisdictional validity of tax proceedings

1. Reinforces Jurisdictional Discipline

The judgment reiterates that procedural compliance is not a mere technicality. Passing a GST order against a non-existent company is a jurisdictional defect.

2. Aligns GST Law with Corporate Law

Corporate restructuring under NCLT cannot be ignored by tax authorities. Once amalgamation is effective, GST proceedings must reflect the new legal reality.

3. Protects Businesses Undergoing Mergers

Companies involved in amalgamation, demerger, or restructuring often face compliance challenges. This ruling ensures they are not unfairly prejudiced by administrative inertia.

4. Protects Revenue Interests

The Court ensured that tax demands do not vanish. They can be pursued against the surviving entity.

Key Takeaways for Businesses

If your company is undergoing merger or amalgamation, consider the following:

• Immediately inform GST authorities about the restructuring.

• Apply for amendment or cancellation of GST registration under Sections 28 and 29.

• Ensure GST portal details reflect the new legal structure.

• Monitor ongoing GST proceedings to avoid procedural complications.

Conclusion

The Rajasthan High Court’s decision in the Larsen & Toubro case strengthens the principle that tax administration must operate within jurisdictional boundaries.

While the GST regime aims for efficiency and digital governance, it cannot override fundamental legal doctrines. An entity that has ceased to exist cannot be subjected to tax proceedings in its old name.

At the same time, the Court adopted a balanced approach by permitting fresh action under the correct GST registration.

This judgment serves as an important precedent in GST demand validity, amalgamation under GST law, cancellation of GST registration, and jurisdictional defects in tax proceedings.

For corporates and tax professionals, the message is clear:

Procedural correctness matters — and legal identity cannot be ignored in GST enforcement.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

1. Can the GST department pass an order against a company that has merged and no longer exists?

No. The Court clearly held that once a company merges and ceases to exist, any GST order passed in its old name is invalid. An order cannot be issued against a non-existent entity.

2. What happens to the old GST registration after a merger?

The Court said that once the department is informed about the merger, the old GST registration should be treated as “deemed cancelled” from the effective date of amalgamation, even if formal cancellation was not processed.

3. Does this mean the company can escape tax liability?

No. The tax liability does not disappear. The department can upload or issue the order under the new GST registration of the merged (surviving) company. The surviving company must deal with the demand as per law.

4. Is passing an order against a non-existent company just a technical mistake?

No. The Court treated it as a jurisdictional defect, not a minor procedural error. Orders against non-existent entities are legally unsustainable.

5. Will limitation apply if the order is reissued in the correct name?

The Court clarified that limitation issues will not arise because of Section 75(3) of the CGST Act. The department can properly reissue the order under the correct GST number without being barred by time.

Have query and need a consultation with tax expert?

We provide consultation to resolve your queries in the Area of International Tax, Indian Income Tax, Goods and Service Tax Act, though call with our Tax Expert CA Shilpa Arora who is tax professional with expertise in Tax litigation, advisory, and compliance.