<?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 (2) TMI 1466 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458688</link>
    <description>Input tax credit may be blocked under Rule 86A where the authority has reason to believe that the registered premises are not being used for genuine business activity. The enforcement enquiry found the business place not functioning at the registered address, and the materials produced by the assessee did not establish actual occupation or conduct of business; nil electricity consumption for the relevant month also supported that factual basis. Although no prior explanation was sought before the blocking communication, the later opportunity to produce documents removed practical prejudice, and the factual basis for blocking was not displaced. The blocking was upheld and remand was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2025 17:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=777511" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (2) TMI 1466 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458688</link>
      <description>Input tax credit may be blocked under Rule 86A where the authority has reason to believe that the registered premises are not being used for genuine business activity. The enforcement enquiry found the business place not functioning at the registered address, and the materials produced by the assessee did not establish actual occupation or conduct of business; nil electricity consumption for the relevant month also supported that factual basis. Although no prior explanation was sought before the blocking communication, the later opportunity to produce documents removed practical prejudice, and the factual basis for blocking was not displaced. The blocking was upheld and remand was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458688</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>