JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1 RULE returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Shashvata Shukla waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. Since short issue is involved, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2 At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Uchit Sheth appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of High Court of Bombay in the case of Umicore Autocat India (P) Ltd Vs. Union of India., [2025] 176 taxmann.com 616 (Bombay).

3 The relevant facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under:

3.1 The petitioner is a private limited company having place of business at Plot No.C1, Talegaon Industrial Area, Talegaon, MIDC Phase 2, Mindewadi, Taluka Mawal, District: Pune, Maharashtra, 410 506, and registered under the Central/Maharashtra Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

3.2 The petitioner-company is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of safety valves and components, was registered under the GST Acts in the States of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.

3.3 The petitioner through a scheme of amalgamation which was approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (for short “the NCLT”) vide order dated 14.11.2019 got amalgamated M/s. Pentair Valves and Controls India Pvt Ltd. As per such scheme, the entire business of the transferor company, including all assets and liabilities was transferred to the petitioner i.e. the transferee company. Pursuant to such merger, the unutilized Input Tax Credit (for short “the ITC”) balance existing in the books of accounts of the transferor company was also transferred to the petitioner.

3.4 The unutilized ITC is shown in the credit in the books of the transferor company was primarily pertaining to the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short “the CGST Act”) since such tax credit had been brought from the earlier Central excise regime by the transferor company by filing Form GST TRAN 1. The petitioner attempted to transfer ITC, but was not allowed due to error message shown on the portal. Thereafter, a reminder letter was given on 08.08.2022, to which the jurisdictional officer orally conveyed that it is trying to sort out the issue, but no positive resolution has been provided. In this regard, the representative of the petitioner met the concerned authority on number of occasions, after which, another reminder was sent on 26.03.2024.

3.5 Learned advocate Mr.Uchit Sheth appearing for the petitioner, while referring to the provisions of Section 18(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short “the CGST Act”) read with Rule 41 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (for short “the CGST Rules”), has submitted that the transfer of the ITC is done through the filing of Form GST ITC-02 on the on-line portal of the GST which the petitioner did. However, a message is displayed on the portal as “Transferee and Transferor should be of the same State -U.T”.

4 Learned advocate Mr.Uchit Sheth appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the statute nowhere prohibits the transfer of the ITC after amalgamation of the companies through GST Form ITC-02 and the endorsement which has been made on the Form ITC-02 by the respondents (GSTIN Portal) is illegal as the respondents cannot incorporate something which is not provided in the statute.

4.1 Thus, it is submitted that since the statute does not prohibit the transferor and transferee company which are located in different states on amalgamation to transfer the ITC, more particularly in wake of the Scheme of Amalgamation approved by the NCLT, the action of the respondents in not permitting the transfer of ITC is illegal. It is submitted that on a similar issue, the Bombay High Court, in the case of Umicore Autocat India (P) Ltd (supra), has allowed such transfer of the ITC, wherein, the entities are located in different states.

4.2 Mr.Uchit Sheth, learned advocate, has also refe