ITC and the Wrong explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
The goods arrived. The payment was made. The books recorded it. The supplier put the wrong branch's GSTIN on the invoice, and a ₹5.65 crore demand followed.
"ITC cannot be denied solely due to the wrong GSTN mentioned by Supplier." — B Braun Medical India Pvt Ltd v. Union of India [(2025:DHC:1656-DB)], W.P. (C) 114/2025 and CM Appl. 434/2025, Delhi High Court. The Court held that "the GST law is not meant to punish Assessees for clerical errors by suppliers."
The facts
"The Assessee, B Braun Medical India Pvt Ltd., a pharmaceutical and medical devices company, had its Delhi GST registration. It procured goods from Ahlcon Parenterals (India) Ltd., whose invoices inadvertently mentioned the petitioner's Bombay address and Bombay GSTN instead of the correct Delhi GSTN."
"Despite the goods being received and recorded in the books, the Department denied input tax credit on this ground, issuing a demand of ₹5,65,91,691/- via Order-in-Original dated 28.06.2024."
Note what did not go wrong. Same legal entity, same PAN, correct name on the invoice, goods actually delivered, payment made, credit claimed once. The only defect was which of the taxpayer's own registrations the supplier typed.
The provision relied on
"Section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017 (eligibility and conditions for ITC): Sub-section (2)(aa) mandates that ITC can be availed only if details of the invoice/debit note are furnished by the supplier in their GSTR-1."
Section 16(2)(aa) is a matching condition, and matching is done by GSTIN. An invoice filed against the Bombay registration populates Bombay's GSTR-2B, not Delhi's — so on the department's reading the Delhi credit had no statutory foundation at all.
The questions the Court framed:
- whether credit "can be denied solely because the wrong GSTN of a different branch (same PAN) was mentioned in the invoice";
- whether section 16(2)(aa) "allows for such a technical disallowance even when all substantive conditions for availing ITC are fulfilled."
The admission that decided it
For the assessee: "It was a bona fide error by the supplier"; "The correct name and identity of the petitioner were reflected"; "All conditions under Section 16 were met except the GSTN mismatch"; "No misuse or double claim occurred."
For the Revenue: "The Department rigidly relied on the GSTN mismatch, without examining the facts of delivery, payment, and utilisation."
And then: "On a specific query by the Court, the Department admitted that no other entity had claimed ITC on the said purchases."
That admission closed the case. The purpose of the matching condition is to ensure a credit is claimed once, by the person entitled to it, against tax the supplier has reported. With no competing claim, the mismatch was a defect in form with no revenue consequence.
The decision
"The Court found the only ground for denial was the mention of the wrong GSTN, i.e., Bombay instead of Delhi. The Court also noted that the Assessee's name was correctly mentioned in the invoices."
"Acknowledged that no other entity claimed the ITC, and the Petitioner received and accounted for the goods."
"Noted that the GST law is not meant to punish Assessees for clerical errors by suppliers."
"Set aside the impugned order dated 28.06.2024 and allow the ITC for the relevant years."
And a procedural detail worth noticing: "Assessee withdrew constitutional challenge to Section 16(2)(aa) after relief was granted."
So section 16(2)(aa) itself stands. The ruling does not read the condition out of the Act; it declines to apply it mechanically where every substantive requirement is met and no revenue is at risk. A taxpayer relying on this needs the same fact pattern — correct name, receipt of goods, payment, single claim — not merely a mismatch.
What to do at finalisation
The error is found in the GSTR-2B reconciliation, as credit claimed in the books that never appeared in that registration's 2B. It is one of the standard reconciling items, and it is worth distinguishing it from its dangerous neighbour: an invoice appearing in your 2B that belongs to someone else.
The evidence to preserve is what the Court relied on — the invoice showing the correct name, proof of delivery to the claiming location, the payment trail, and confirmation that the other registration did not claim the same credit. A credit note and fresh invoice from the supplier remains the cleaner fix where the period is still open.
Key takeaways
- The Delhi High Court set aside a ₹5,65,91,691 demand raised solely on a wrong-GSTIN invoice.
- The invoices carried the taxpayer's Bombay registration instead of its Delhi one — same entity, same PAN.
- Section 16(2)(aa) requires the supplier to report the invoice, and matching runs on GSTIN.
- The Department admitted no other entity had claimed the credit.
- The Court held GST law is not meant to punish assessees for suppliers' clerical errors.
- The constitutional challenge to section 16(2)(aa) was withdrawn once relief was granted — the provision stands.
- The relief depended on all substantive conditions being met: correct name, receipt, payment, single claim.
- The error surfaces in the books-to-GSTR-2B reconciliation at finalisation.
Read next
- Section 16(4) and the Retrospective Section 16(5)
- ITC Denied for a Supplier's Default: The Bona Fide Purchaser Rulings
- Reconciling GST Ledgers with the Books at Finalisation
Disclaimer: Positions stated as on 5 September 2026, based on B Braun Medical India Pvt Ltd v. Union of India [(2025:DHC:1656-DB)] and section 16 of the CGST Act, 2017, as summarised in the ICAI compilation Significant Judicial and Advance Rulings in GST (Second Edition, February 2026).