1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Highlights
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
The HC held that the restriction imposed by the Respondents on transferring un-utilized ITC post-merger/amalgamation under Section 18(3) CGST Act, 2017, based on differing States/UTs of transferor and transferee, is not supported by the statutory scheme. The Court clarified that the CGST Act prescribes specific timelines for ITC claims and permits transfer of ITC to a new entity arising from amalgamation or merger without imposing a same-State requirement. Legislative intent must be ascertained from the statute's language without adding or substituting words. Consequently, the Petitioner, a new entity formed by amalgamation, is entitled to the transfer of ITC from the transferor company despite differing States. The petition was allowed, directing the Respondents to enable ITC transfer accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
