Omitted specified domestic transaction provision invalidates related-party expenditure transfer-pricing references and assessments based on consequent...
Preventive suspension requires an immediate continuing threat and cannot become indefinite without inquiry, fresh evidence, or proportionate safeguard...
HC held that a minor clerical error in GST documentation - specifically, the mention of petitioner's Bombay office GSTN instead of Delhi office GSTN on invoices - cannot be grounds for denying Input Tax Credit under Section 16(2)(aa) of CGST Act, 2017. The court noted that petitioner's name was correctly mentioned on invoices and no other entity had claimed the ITC on these purchases. The impugned Order dated June 28, 2024 was set aside, allowing petitioner to avail the ITC, as denying credit for such a minor error would cause substantial financial loss. Petition partly allowed.
HC held that a minor clerical error in GST documentation - specifically, the mention of petitioner's Bombay office GSTN instead of Delhi office GSTN on invoices - cannot be grounds for denying Input Tax Credit under Section 16(2)(aa) of CGST Act, 2017. The court noted that petitioner's name was correctly mentioned on invoices and no other entity had claimed the ITC on these purchases. The impugned Order dated June 28, 2024 was set aside, allowing petitioner to avail the ITC, as denying credit for such a minor error would cause substantial financial loss. Petition partly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
