Held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
In the matter of
M/s B Braun Medical India Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India & Ors. (W. P. (C)
114/2025 & CM APPL. 434/2025)
In the recent case of M/s B Braun Medical India Private Limited, the Delhi High Court has granted one of the major relief wherein it was held that ITC can be allowed if the supplier has inadvertently mentioned the GST Number and address of the Assessee of the Maharashtra state instead of the Delhi state on the invoices.
In the given case, the Petitioner is a company engaged in the sale of various Pharmaceutical Products and Medical Devices. The Petitioner purchased goods from M/s Alchon Parenteral (India) Limited (“The Supplier”). The Supplier raised the invoice in the name of the petitioner. However, the supplier inadvertently mentioned the Bombay Address and Bombay GSTIN of the petitioner instead of the Delhi GST Number on the invoices. Therefore, the Ld assessing officer disallowed the ITC to the extent of INR 5.65 Crores on the ground that the petitioner has wrongly availed the excess Input Tax Credit (ITC).
The Petitioner contended that the Petitioner’s name is correctly mentioned in the invoices, however, the wrong GST number of the Bombay office has been mentioned. Further, no other entity has also claimed at the ITC on these purchases. The only basis for rejecting the ITC is the mention of the Bombay office GSTN instead of the Delhi office GSTN.
Hon’ble High Court set aside the impugned Order in Original rejecting the ITC. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to avail of the Input Tax Credit.
1. Brief Facts of the case:
- M/s B Braun Medical India Private Limited (“The Petitioner”) is a company engaged in the business of the sale of various Pharmaceutical Products and medical devices.
- The Petitioner purchased a large quantity of products from M/s Ahlcon Parenterals (India) Limited (“The Supplier”) based on various purchase orders.
- The invoices for the said products were raised by the supplier on the petitioner. However, the Supplier inadvertently reflected the Bombay Address and Bombay GSTIN of the petitioner on the invoice instead of the Delhi GST Number.
- Consequently, the Ld. The assessing officer disallowed the ITC to the extent of INR 5.65 Crores on the ground that the petitioner has wrongly availed the excess Input Tax Credit (ITC).
- Consequently, the petitioner filed the writ petitioner before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
2. Contention of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner Contended that:
- The Petitioner is a Delhi-based company, and the incorrect reflection of the Petitioner’s Bombay GSTN on the invoices was merely an error by the supplier.
- The Petitioner’s name is correctly mentioned in the invoices, however, the wrong GST number of the Bombay office has been mentioned.
- Further, no other entity has also claimed at the ITC on these purchases.
- 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.
3. Order of the Hon’ble High Court
Hon’ble High Court has held that:
- The prayer of the Petitioner is allowed. The impugned Order in the Original rejecting the ITC is set aside. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to avail of the Input Tax Credit.
