(1.) THESE matters are interconnected. The parties are the same in all these matters. The respondent in T.R.C. No. 44 of 2003 is a public limited company. Prior to April 1, 1995, another company by name Jindal Ferro Alloys was in existence, registered under the Companies Act with the Registrar of Companies in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is an admitted case of the parties that the said company during its existence was a subsidiary of the respondent -company.
(2.) THE abovementioned subsidiary company admittedly got amalgamated with the holding company, i.e., the respondent -company hereinafter following the appropriate procedure of law prescribed under the Companies Act with effect from April 1, 1995. The said date is the effective date agreed upon by both the companies under the scheme of amalgamation, which was approved by two High Courts having jurisdiction over the holding company and the subsidiary company. Though the actual orders approving the scheme of amalgamation came to be passed much later, i.e., on September 19,1996 by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh insofar as the subsidiary company is concerned and on October 3, 1996 insofar as the holding company is concerned by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. As a matter of fact, appropriate intimations to the Registrars of the Companies concerned were made obviously later to October 3, 1996 the details of which may not be necessary for the purpose of the present case. The relevant facts which resulted in the litigation in these batch of cases as narrated by the assessee in his affidavit in W. P. No. 1031 of 2006 are as follows :
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the orders dated October 1, 2002 of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 1458 of 2001, the State preferred the T.R.C. No. 44 of 2003.