23 October 2024
Read More3 October 2024
Read More26 September 2024
Read MoreWe are a family of strong 800+ people including 470+ professionals working from 14 locations across India.
We have a rich heritage and enduring legacy which are pivotal in shaping trust, excellence, and unparalleled legal expertise, thus building a strong reputation and a trusted brand.
Read MoreWe started in 1985 in a single room set up by the two founders with no prior experience of working in a law firm. Both the founders had outstanding academic records and focused on their deep understanding of the law to form the foundation of the firm.
Integrity, Knowledge and Passion are the principles that resonate with every member of our LKS family and the work that we do. These values drive us to build a community of legally sound professionals and well-serviced clients.
Everything we have accomplished over the last four decades is a result of our unique way of thinking which is deeply influenced by our core values and principles that define us.
Read MoreWe and our professionals consistently garner appreciation for the quality of our services and the depth of our legal expertise. This consistent acknowledgment serves as a testament to our unwavering commitment to exceed expectations.
24 January 2024
The Bombay High Court has held that a bonafide, inadvertent error in furnishing details in a GST return needs to be recognized and permitted to be corrected by the department, when in such cases the department is aware that there is no loss of revenue to the Government.
The assessee in Star Engineers (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India had sought in September 2023 correction in the Form GSTR-1 filed for the months of July 2021, November 2021 and January 2022, on account of human error committed inadvertently, as GSTINs of ‘Ship to’ parties were reported in the GSTR-1 instead of that of ‘Bill to’ party. The ‘Bill to’ was thus unable to take ITC.
Allowing the writ, the Court observed that provisions of Section 37(3) read with Section 38 and sub-sections (9) and (10) of Section 39 need to be purposively interpreted.
The Court was hence of the opinion that the proviso ought not to defeat the intention of the legislature as borne out on a bare reading of Section 37(3) and Section 39(9) in the category of cases when there is a bona fide and inadvertent error in filing of returns, when there is no loss of revenue.