<?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>2026 (9) TMI 395 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798369</link>
    <description>Rectification under the applicable GST enactments is limited to patent errors apparent from the record. Where supporting documents were not furnished and no apparent error in the original order was established, rectification of an under-declaration of ineligible input tax credit could not be granted. The rejection of the rectification request was therefore valid, leaving the finding of under-declared ineligible input tax credit unchanged.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2026 08:44:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=921022" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (9) TMI 395 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798369</link>
      <description>Rectification under the applicable GST enactments is limited to patent errors apparent from the record. Where supporting documents were not furnished and no apparent error in the original order was established, rectification of an under-declaration of ineligible input tax credit could not be granted. The rejection of the rectification request was therefore valid, leaving the finding of under-declared ineligible input tax credit unchanged.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798369</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>