💡 Delhi High Court Upholds GST ITC Claim Despite GSTIN Error – A Relief for Genuine Taxpayers!

In a significant judgment that offers much-needed clarity on GST input tax credit (ITC) compliance, the Delhi High Court has come to the rescue of honest taxpayers in the case of M/s B Braun Medical India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. (C) 114/2025), decided on March 12, 2025.

Let’s unpack what this case was about — and why it matters to every business claiming ITC under GST.

⚙️ The Background: What Went Wrong?

M/s B Braun Medical India Pvt. Ltd., a leading medical and pharmaceutical company, made genuine purchases from its supplier, M/s Ahlcon Parenterals (India) Ltd. Everything seemed fine — except for one clerical error.

• The supplier mistakenly mentioned the GSTIN and address of B Braun’s Mumbai office on the tax invoice.

• However, the goods were shipped to and used at the Delhi unit.

• The Delhi GSTIN — which was actually eligible to claim ITC — was not mentioned in the invoice.

💥 Based on this error, the GST authorities denied ITC to the tune of ₹5.65 crore, arguing that the invoice was invalid for claiming credit due to the incorrect GSTIN.

⚖️ The Court’s Stand: Substance Over Form

Thankfully, the Delhi High Court took a pragmatic and taxpayer-friendly view. Here’s what the Court observed:

✅ The petitioner’s name was correctly mentioned.

✅ The transaction was genuine, duly recorded, and goods were received.

✅ Supplier had correctly reported the transaction in their GSTR-1.

✅ No other unit or branch of the petitioner claimed ITC on those invoices.

🚨 Denying ITC merely for a clerical error in the GSTIN, when all other aspects of the transaction were compliant, would amount to unjust enrichment of the government, the Court said.

"Tax laws are meant to ensure compliance, not penalize bona fide mistakes."– Delhi High Court, March 2025

🧠 Key Takeaways for Businesses and Tax Professionals

📌 Minor errors ≠ ITC disqualification: If the invoice carries the correct name and the supply is bona fide, ITC should not be denied.

📌 Importance of documentation: Ensure goods are received, payments are made, and the transaction is reflected in GSTR-2A/2B.

📌 Relief to branches/units: Errors in GSTIN tagging between branches, if unintentional and traceable, may not invalidate the ITC claim.

📌 Reinforces the principle of “substance over form”: GST compliance cannot be reduced to a paperwork trap. The real intention and execution of transactions matter.

🔍 Why This Case Matters

In day-to-day business, clerical errors happen — especially in multi-state operations. This judgment is a reassuring precedent that supports fair compliance and discourages tax authorities from taking a hyper-technical view.

With increasing GST audits and scrutiny, this case brings balance to the enforcement narrative.

📣 Final Thought

For every tax consultant or business owner who’s had a sleepless night over a wrongly typed GSTIN or address — this case is a reminder that courts still stand for justice and common sense.

Let’s focus on genuine compliance, not fear.