TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the re-blocking of the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger on 30.05.2025 was liable to be quashed on the ground that it remained blocked beyond the permissible period under Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and was void for want of jurisdiction or statutory violation.
Analysis: The respondents produced an order-in-original dated 01.05.2025 arising from proceedings under Section 74 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in which tax, interest, fee and penalties aggregating Rs. 4,95,64,354/- were imposed and, following that order, the Electronic Credit Ledger was re-blocked on 30.05.2025. The period of one year specified by Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 had not expired since the date of the re-blocking. The writ petition filed in July, 2025 did not disclose these material facts, including initiation of proceedings under Section 74 of the TGST Act, which were germane to the challenge to the blocking. In the context of a writ petition, material facts relevant to the cause of action must be disclosed. Given the ongoing statutory proceeding and the unexpired one-year period under Rule 86A, there was no ground to interfere with the administrative action of blocking the Electronic Credit Ledger.
Conclusion: The challenge to the re-blocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger is rejected; the writ petition is dismissed and the respondents' action in re-blocking the Electronic Credit Ledger on 30.05.2025 is upheld (in favour of Revenue).
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
