Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
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.
Issues: Whether blocking of input tax credit in the electronic credit ledger under Rule 86-A of the UP GST Rules, 2017 was valid when the impugned order did not record the requisite reason to believe in writing.
Analysis: The power under Rule 86-A is conditional upon the competent authority forming and recording, in writing, a reason to believe before blocking input tax credit. Subsequent written instructions or later explanations cannot cure the absence of reasons in the impugned order itself. The order merely referred to a conclusion of fraudulent availment of input tax credit and did not disclose the recorded reasons required by law. The material relied upon also did not show the necessary application of mind to the petitioner's case so as to satisfy the statutory threshold.
Conclusion: The blocking order was jurisdictionally deficient for want of recorded reasons to believe and was set aside. Relief was therefore granted in favour of the assessee.