High Court of Madras
V.V. Iron Steel Company (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise
For revenue
W.P. (MD) NO.10232 OF 2026
High Court of Madras
W.P. (MD) NO.10232 OF 2026
Where manufacturer of TMT steel bars had credits blocked under Rule 86A due to evidence that four supplier premises were vacant with no infrastructure, no vehicle movements were recorded for alleged deliveries, and documentation anomalies indicated fake transactions, power to block ITC was validly exercised based on adequate material, and writ seeking unblocking was not justified
Rule 86A, read with rule 86, of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017
This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.
Members
The background, the issue before the court and the reasoning behind the decision are free for members — along with the professional discussion on this ruling.
Free to join. No card required.
Already a member? Sign in
Madras High Court
Where registered trader's input tax credit in electronic credit ledger was blocked for over two years despite express rule limiting restriction period to one year, such continued blockage was invalid as the rule mandated unblocking after one year, and internal communication could not lawfully justify extension of restriction beyond statutory limit
Rajasthan High Court
Where petition challenged respondents' blocking of ITC credited in electronic credit ledger for noncompliance with Rule 86A, alleging absence of recorded reasons and precondition satisfaction, and ledger subsequently became unblocked by operation of law during proceedings, since mandatory requirements of Rule 86A were not complied and substantive relief was spent, petition was disposed with a caution of future liability for noncompliance
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Where construction company’s electronic credit ledger was blocked under Rule 86A by Additional Commissioner without recorded reasons or prior hearing, such action, though Rule 86A does not specify hearing, violated principles of natural justice due to serious civil consequences, and order was set aside as arbitrary and passed in breach of audi alteram partem