Undisclosed foreign asset classification requires an unexplained source; unrebutted affidavits and corroborative evidence defeated the Black Money Act...
Specialized Investment Fund distribution now requires dedicated certification, while transitional recognition preserves existing qualified distributor...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
