Pre-enactment land-sale agreements escape stamp-duty value substitution where substantial banking-channel consideration was received before Section 43...
Customs valuation and classification require comparable evidence and assessment of imported goods in their actual condition, invalidating related pena...
HC held that the petitioner had committed a bona fide error by uploading the GSTIN of the Kerala branch of R-5 instead of its Chennai (Tamil Nadu) branch in GSTR-1, which prevented R-4 from availing Input Tax Credit. Relying on analogous precedents, HC observed that where no revenue loss occurs and the mistake is inadvertent, technicalities should not obstruct legitimate rectification. Given the serious disputes between the petitioner and R-4/R-5, HC kept all inter se contentions open. HC partly allowed the petition and directed R-1 to R-3 to permit the petitioner to amend the relevant GSTR-1 returns within four weeks from receipt of the order.
HC held that the petitioner had committed a bona fide error by uploading the GSTIN of the Kerala branch of R-5 instead of its Chennai (Tamil Nadu) branch in GSTR-1, which prevented R-4 from availing Input Tax Credit. Relying on analogous precedents, HC observed that where no revenue loss occurs and the mistake is inadvertent, technicalities should not obstruct legitimate rectification. Given the serious disputes between the petitioner and R-4/R-5, HC kept all inter se contentions open. HC partly allowed the petition and directed R-1 to R-3 to permit the petitioner to amend the relevant GSTR-1 returns within four weeks from receipt of the order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.