Department passed order confirming demand on the ground that the assessee wrongly availed excess Input Tax Credit, as incorrect GSTN was reflected on the invoices raised by the supplier. The assessee submitted that incorrect reflection of assessee's GSTN on the invoices was merely an error by the supplier.Held: The assessees name was correctly mentioned in the invoices, however, the wrong GST number was mentioned. On a direct query being put to the Department, he fairly admitted that no other entity claimed Input Tax Credit on these purchases. The only basis for rejecting the Input Tax Credit was the mention of the incorrect GSTN on the invoices. Substantial loss would be caused to the assessee if the credit is not granted for such a small error on behalf of the supplier. Therefore, the order in original, rejecting the Input Tax Credit, was set aside and the assessee was permitted to avail of the Input Tax Credit.
IN THE DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M. SINGH & RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
B. Braun Medical India (P) Ltd. v. UOI & Ors.
W.P. (C) 114/2025 & CM Appl. 434/2025
12 March, 2025
Petitioner by: Tarun Gulati, Sr. Advocate with Ashwini Chandrasekaran, Mahir Chablani and Devansh, Advocates.
Respondents by: Shubham Tyagi, SSC for CBIC.
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
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 28-6-2024, being Order-in-Original no. 04/HK/JC/CGST/DSC/2024-25, issued by the learned Joint Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, Delhi, South Commissionerate, and
(ii) the vires of section 16 (2) (aa) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
3. Vide the impugned order a demand to the tune of Rs.5,65,91,691 has been raised against the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner has wrongly availed of excess Input Tax Credit (hereinafter ITC).
4. Petitioner is a company, which is engaged in the sale of various pharmaceutical products and medical devices. The case of the Petitioner is that it had purchased a large quantum of products from M/s. Ahlcon Parenterals (India) Limited (hereinafter Ahlcon) on the basis of various purchase orders. It is stated that the invoices for the said products were raised by Ahlcon on the Petitioner, however, 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.