Input Tax Credit blocking requires taxpayer-specific particulars; generalized fake-invoice allegations were insufficient and interim relief continued.

Blocking of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A(3) requires assessee-specific particulars and a factual basis tied to the affected taxpayer. In a fake-invoice investigation, the Court noted that investigations must be individualized and that generalized allegations are insufficient to sustain the blocking order. It further observed that the credit had remained blocked beyond the prescribed period under Rule 86A(3), which weighed against the impugned action. The matter was therefore directed to be examined further, notice was issued, and interim relief was allowed to operate in the petitioner's favour.

---

---

Issues: Whether the blocking of Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A(3) of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 required assessee-specific particulars and whether the matter warranted further examination and notice.

Analysis: The proceedings concerned blocking of Input Tax Credit in the context of an alleged fake-invoice investigation. The Court observed that investigations must be individualized and that particulars must be furnished with reference to each assessee. On the material then available, there was no sufficient basis to justify the impugned action against the affected petitioner, particularly when the credit had remained blocked beyond the prescribed period under Rule 86A(3).

Conclusion: The matter required examination, notice was issued, and interim consideration was allowed to proceed in the petitioner's favour.

---