out various disabilities that are incurred by a URD. It is not necessary to set out the same in extenso. One of the consequences is that the sales transaction effected earlier gets converted into Branch transfers. This legal position according to Petitioner, is established by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, (223 ITR 809). Once the transaction becomes branch transaction, the transferor Branch has to receive “F” form declarations under CST Act, 1956 from the transferee branch, If transferor branch fails to receive the same, as per section 6A of CST Act, such transfers will be treated as sale transactions in hands of transferor and the tax can be levied on the same accordingly. It is not necessary to set out various other disabilities incurred. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that the Petitioners could not have applied for the registration untill the court sanctioned the scheme of amalgamation. Though in the scheme of amalgamation, the date of amalgamation may he set out. It is for the court ultimately to decide the date of amalgamation. In these circumstances, an application for registration can only be made after an order sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation. Like in the instant case, if the company court accepts the date given by the amalgamating companies, then it is not possible to adhere to the time frame under the rules for making an application for registration within the time limit specified so as to make it effective from the date of application. It is submitted that in these circumstances, the procedural rules must be so read to give effect to the order of the company court and in these circumstances, for the purpose of Rule (7)(1)(a-1), the date of application for registration can only be counted from the date of sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation.
