https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775120 The Bombay HC allowed a petition challenging restriction on transfer of unutilized Input Tax Credit following merger/amalgamation under Section 18(3) of CGST Act, 2017. The tax department had denied ITC transfer displaying message that transferee and transferor must be from same state/union territory. The petitioner entity emerged after amalgamation and sought ITC transfer from transferee company but was refused due to interstate restriction. The HC held that careful reading of Section 18(3) with Rule 41 does not impose any interstate restriction for ITC transfer to new entity following merger/amalgamation. The court emphasized legislative intention must be gathered from actual language used, noting what has been said and not said. Construction requiring addition/substitution of words should be avoided, and courts cannot reframe legislation or read words into Act without clear statutory basis. Finding no grounds to deny statutory benefit to petitioner if entitled under the scheme, the petition was disposed of favorably. en-us Thu, 10 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Jul 2025 08:25:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775120 The Bombay HC allowed a petition challenging restriction on transfer of unutilized Input Tax Credit following merger/amalgamation under Section 18(3) of CGST Act, 2017. The tax department had denied ITC transfer displaying message that transferee and transferor must be from same state/union territory. The petitioner entity emerged after amalgamation and sought ITC transfer from transferee company but was refused due to interstate restriction. The HC held that careful reading of Section 18(3) with Rule 41 does not impose any interstate restriction for ITC transfer to new entity following merger/amalgamation. The court emphasized legislative intention must be gathered from actual language used, noting what has been said and not said. Construction requiring addition/substitution of words should be avoided, and courts cannot reframe legislation or read words into Act without clear statutory basis. Finding no grounds to deny statutory benefit to petitioner if entitled under the scheme, the petition was disposed of favorably. Case-Laws GST Thu, 10 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775120