Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
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.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
