https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772956 HC allowed petition challenging demand u/s 73 CGST Act for 2017-18 assessment year regarding input tax credit irregularities. Court relied on Division Bench precedent distinguishing between technical/inadvertent errors versus wrongful credit availment. The precedent established that mere omission to separately mention IGST figures in Form GSTR 3A, without actual wrong availment, constitutes technical mistake not warranting penalty. HC directed reconsideration of impugned order to determine if irregularities involved wrong credit availment under incorrect heads. Petition disposed with direction for fresh assessment based on established legal principles. en-us Thu, 05 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jun 2025 08:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772956 HC allowed petition challenging demand u/s 73 CGST Act for 2017-18 assessment year regarding input tax credit irregularities. Court relied on Division Bench precedent distinguishing between technical/inadvertent errors versus wrongful credit availment. The precedent established that mere omission to separately mention IGST figures in Form GSTR 3A, without actual wrong availment, constitutes technical mistake not warranting penalty. HC directed reconsideration of impugned order to determine if irregularities involved wrong credit availment under incorrect heads. Petition disposed with direction for fresh assessment based on established legal principles. Case-Laws GST Thu, 05 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772956