Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
Blocking the input tax credit against the petitioners - The High Court emphasizes that Rule 86(A) allows restricting debit from the electronic credit ledger for an amount equivalent to fraudulently availed credit. Rule 86(A) doesn't authorize negative balance insertion in the ledger; it only permits blocking of the credit available. The Court rules that blocking ITC effectively deprives the petitioner of the right to discharge liabilities. The respondents should have initiated recovery proceedings under Section 73 or Section 74 if the petitioner had fraudulently availed ITC. The action of the respondents is deemed unsustainable as it violates Rule 86(A) and previous court decisions. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside, and the respondents are directed to recall the order of blockage immediately.
Blocking the input tax credit against the petitioners - The High Court emphasizes that Rule 86(A) allows restricting debit from the electronic credit ledger for an amount equivalent to fraudulently availed credit. Rule 86(A) doesn't authorize negative balance insertion in the ledger; it only permits blocking of the credit available. The Court rules that blocking ITC effectively deprives the petitioner of the right to discharge liabilities. The respondents should have initiated recovery proceedings under Section 73 or Section 74 if the petitioner had fraudulently availed ITC. The action of the respondents is deemed unsustainable as it violates Rule 86(A) and previous court decisions. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside, and the respondents are directed to recall the order of blockage immediately.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
