https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764523 The HC held that inserting clause (e) in the SCN and subsequent order under Section 73 of the Odisha GST Act, 2017 constituted typographical errors. While two provisos were clearly present, the court required satisfaction that there was a finding establishing the petitioner had claimed and availed ITC before reversing it. The court directed the Revenue to issue instructions regarding the rectification of these typographical mistakes. The impugned order challenging the ITC reversal was stayed until the next hearing date scheduled for 21st January, 2025, pending proper rectification of the errors in the show cause notice and order. en-us Fri, 03 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Jul 2025 14:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764523 The HC held that inserting clause (e) in the SCN and subsequent order under Section 73 of the Odisha GST Act, 2017 constituted typographical errors. While two provisos were clearly present, the court required satisfaction that there was a finding establishing the petitioner had claimed and availed ITC before reversing it. The court directed the Revenue to issue instructions regarding the rectification of these typographical mistakes. The impugned order challenging the ITC reversal was stayed until the next hearing date scheduled for 21st January, 2025, pending proper rectification of the errors in the show cause notice and order. Case-Laws GST Fri, 03 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764523