HomeGSTWhether Wrong Address & GSTIN on Invoices Should Deny ITC? Supreme Court...

Whether Wrong Address & GSTIN on Invoices Should Deny ITC? Supreme Court Admits Dept’s Appeal

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Supreme Court has admitted department’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the judgement of Delhi High Court which held that minor technical errors like wrong address and Goods and Service Tax Identification Number (GSTIN) on invoices should not unjustly deny a company its entitled Input Tax Credit (ITC).

The bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale has admitted the department’s appeal against the Delhi High Court Judgement in the case of  M/S B Braun Medical India Pvt Ltd Versus Union Of India & Ors. in which it was held that  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.

The High Court set aside the order in Original rejecting the ITC and permitted the Petitioner to avail of the Input Tax Credit in respect of the supplies.

Being aggrieved by the order of the Delhi High Court the department has filed the Special Leave to Appeal contending that the High Court has completely ignored Section 25(4) of the Central GST Act which categorically states that each registration shall be treated as distinct person for the purposes of this Act.

As per Section 25(4) of the Central GST Act  a person who has obtained or is required to obtain more than one registration, whether in one State or Union territory or more than one State or Union territory shall, in respect of each such registration, be treated as distinct persons for the purposes of this Act.

Therefore the Apex Court has issued the notice which is returnable within six weeks.

Case Details

Case Title: Union Of India & Ors.  Versus M/S B Braun Medical India Pvt Ltd 

Case No.: Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 17790/2025

Date:  15-07-2025

Counsel For  Appellant: ASG N. Venkataraman

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Compensation for Delayed Possession Of Flats To Homebuyers Can’t Be Limited by One-Sided Builder Clauses: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has upheld the authority of consumer forums to award fair compensation...

Extended Limitation Not Invocable Without Suppression: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand on Online Advertisement

The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has...

Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS Unsustainable When Underlying Services Are Exempt: CESTAT

The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has...

SEBI Suspends General Manager in Vigilance Case Linked to SME IPO Probe

In a significant internal development, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has...

More like this

Compensation for Delayed Possession Of Flats To Homebuyers Can’t Be Limited by One-Sided Builder Clauses: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has upheld the authority of consumer forums to award fair compensation...

Extended Limitation Not Invocable Without Suppression: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand on Online Advertisement

The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has...

Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS Unsustainable When Underlying Services Are Exempt: CESTAT

The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has...