Sherisha Technologies Private Ltd. - WP No.18729 of 2024 (respondents not identified in supplied orders)

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

The connected writ challenged the 30 March 2023 notice and 31 March 2024 reassessment order. Counsel said the petitioner was renamed Sherisha Technologies Private Ltd. following an NCLT-approved merger on 21 July 2022, intimated to the officer on 22 November 2022. Counsel alleged that proceedings nevertheless used the transferor's old PAN and ignored the reply and documents. The main order gives conflicting assessment-year text on pages 1 and 2.

Source: Main PDF pp.1-2

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

After considering the circumstances and the petitioner's submissions, the Court found a prima facie case for interim relief. Standing counsel took notice for the respondents. The order does not finally determine the merger's tax consequences, the validity of the notice or whether natural justice was violated; those matters appear as the petitioner's contentions.

Source: Main PDF pp.2-3, paras 2-3

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

In WP18729/2024 with WMP20548/2024, the Court granted an interim stay till 16 August 2024 and posted the matter on that date. Separately, WMP20547/2024 in the same writ was disposed of with the direction: Dispensed with for the present. The ancillary slip does not identify the requirement dispensed with.

Source: Main PDF p.3, paras 4-5; ancillary PDF p.1

4. OUTCOME

The petitioner obtained temporary protection under the connected main order, while the supplied ancillary order provided only a present dispensation. Neither order quashed the reassessment or finally allowed the writ. The 5 August order states a stay till 16 August 2024; the separately reviewed 19 August extension is identified under later treatment.

Source: Main PDF p.3; ancillary PDF p.1

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

Separate the two procedural effects

The original WMP20547 slip cannot itself establish a stay. That relief is in WP18729 with WMP20548. Preserve both docket references when relying on the orders; the dispensation's subject is not stated and should not be described as exemption from filing a particular document.

Source: Main PDF pp.3-4; ancillary PDF p.1

A prima facie merger challenge remains undecided

The merger, change of name, notification to the officer and use of the old PAN were counsel's submissions. They explain the request for protection but are not a final ruling that every post-merger assessment in an old name is void. Any merits argument requires the actual scheme, communication and assessment record.

Source: Main PDF pp.1-3

Use the express duration

The stay was granted till 16 August 2024, with listing on the same date. A separate 19 August order extends the interim order till 20 September 2024. Neither order establishes continuing protection today.

Source: Main PDF p.3, paras 4-5 · 19 August 2024 extension, p.1

Reconcile the source before formal reliance

Page 1 prints AY2019-2010 while page 2 states AY2019-2020. Check the challenged notice and assessment order for the operative year. The available orders also omit respondents' identities, so a particular assessing office cannot safely be supplied from inference.

Source: Main PDF pp.1-2