Just a moment...
We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic
• Quick overview summary answering your query with references
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
• Detailed report covering:
- Overview Summary
- Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
- Relevant Case Laws
- Tariff / Classification / HSN
- Expert views from TaxTMI
- Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Negative blocking of taxpayer's electronic credit ledger under CGST Rules-action held unauthorised; unblocking order upheld, SLP dismissed.</h1> The dominant issue was whether tax authorities could sustain 'negative blocking' of a taxpayer's electronic credit ledger under the CGST Act and Rules. ... Unblocking of Electronic Credit Ledger [ECL] as maintained by the writ petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [Act] and the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 [Rules] - negative blocking - it was held by High Court that 'The action of the respondents cannot be sustained.' HELD THAT:- No case for interference is made out in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. SLP dismissed. The Supreme Court, in a Partial Court Working Days Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi, heard the Special Leave Petition. After considering the submissions, the Court 'condoned delay' but held that 'no case for interference is made out in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.' Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed. The Court clarified that 'other remedies of the petitioners for recovery in accordance with law are kept open.' Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.