9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 774X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... blani and Mr. Devansh, Advocates. For the Respondents Through: Mr. Shubham Tyagi, SSC for CBIC. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging, (i) impugned order dated 28th June, 2024, being Order-in-Original no. 04/HK/JC/CGST/DSC/2024-25, issued by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said invoices inadvertently reflected the Bombay address and Bombay GSTN of the Petitioner, instead of the Delhi GSTN number. This has led to the impugned demand. 5. On the last hearing i.e., 8th Janurary, 2025, Mr. Tarun Gulati, Id. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, relied upon the purchase orders and invoices, to submit that, the Petitioner is clearly a Delhi based compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ases. The only basis for rejecting the ITC is the mention of the Bombay office GSTN instead of the Delhi office GSTN. Substantial loss would be caused to the Petitioner if the credit is not granted for such a small error on behalf of the supplier. 9. Mr. Gulati, lastly submits that if the correction in the invoices is permitted and the Petitioner is provided the Input Tax Credit (ITC), the challe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
