Limitation in customs appeals permits exclusion for bona fide refund proceedings, enabling restoration of Bill of Entry assessment challenges on merit...
Warehousing permission requires deposit at the designated bonded warehouse; unauthorised diversion triggers confiscation, redemption fine and importer...
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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
