https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780166 A credit ledger blocked under Rule 86-A was challenged on the ground that the authority had not recorded reasons to believe before taking the action. The Bombay HC noted that the affected taxpayer had already been noticed and heard, and that a post-decisional hearing would be granted. It therefore set aside the blocking order subject to a bank guarantee, and directed the GST authorities to give full opportunity of hearing and pass fresh orders within four months. The stated principle is that Rule 86-A action cannot stand without recorded reasons, and fairness requires an effective hearing before final determination. en-us Wed, 01 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Oct 2025 11:07:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780166 A credit ledger blocked under Rule 86-A was challenged on the ground that the authority had not recorded reasons to believe before taking the action. The Bombay HC noted that the affected taxpayer had already been noticed and heard, and that a post-decisional hearing would be granted. It therefore set aside the blocking order subject to a bank guarantee, and directed the GST authorities to give full opportunity of hearing and pass fresh orders within four months. The stated principle is that Rule 86-A action cannot stand without recorded reasons, and fairness requires an effective hearing before final determination. Case-Laws GST Wed, 01 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780166