<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (9) TMI 495 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758251</link>
    <description>Rule 86A permits blocking of input tax credit only for one year, and continued restraint beyond that period is not sustainable. On the admitted facts, the blocking order had remained in force after expiry of the statutory period, so the restraint on the credit was invalid. The consequential blocking of the credit ledger also failed because it depended on the underlying order and could not survive once that order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 May 2025 23:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=767389" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 495 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758251</link>
      <description>Rule 86A permits blocking of input tax credit only for one year, and continued restraint beyond that period is not sustainable. On the admitted facts, the blocking order had remained in force after expiry of the statutory period, so the restraint on the credit was invalid. The consequential blocking of the credit ledger also failed because it depended on the underlying order and could not survive once that order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758251</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>