<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (4) TMI 870 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768956</link>
    <description>The SC ruled in favor of the petitioner regarding input tax credit (ITC) utilization under GST laws. The Court found that an inadvertent error in claiming ITC under IGST instead of CGST/SGST did not warrant tax, penalty, or interest. Relying on a CBIC Circular and precedent case, the Court held that the electronic credit ledger should be treated as a unified resource, and the petitioner&#039;s actions did not cause revenue loss.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 21:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=814703" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 870 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768956</link>
      <description>The SC ruled in favor of the petitioner regarding input tax credit (ITC) utilization under GST laws. The Court found that an inadvertent error in claiming ITC under IGST instead of CGST/SGST did not warrant tax, penalty, or interest. Relying on a CBIC Circular and precedent case, the Court held that the electronic credit ledger should be treated as a unified resource, and the petitioner&#039;s actions did not cause revenue loss.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768956</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>