Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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.
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.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
