https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402990 The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim for supplies made to a SEZ unit/SEZ Developer due to discrepancies in invoices and filing errors. The appellant incorrectly showed zero-rated supplies in GSTR-3B as "NIL" for certain periods but later corrected the details. Typographic errors were acknowledged, emphasizing genuine intent. Despite opportunities for rectification provided by Circular No.26/26/2017-GST, the appellant failed to utilize them. The Commissioner upheld the rejection of the refund claim, citing non-compliance with rectification provisions and legal requirements. en-us Wed, 20 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402990 The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim for supplies made to a SEZ unit/SEZ Developer due to discrepancies in invoices and filing errors. The appellant incorrectly showed zero-rated supplies in GSTR-3B as "NIL" for certain periods but later corrected the details. Typographic errors were acknowledged, emphasizing genuine intent. Despite opportunities for rectification provided by Circular No.26/26/2017-GST, the appellant failed to utilize them. The Commissioner upheld the rejection of the refund claim, citing non-compliance with rectification provisions and legal requirements. Case-Laws GST Wed, 20 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402990