<?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>2026 (6) TMI 886 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793505</link>
    <description>Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017 allows blocking of debit from the electronic credit ledger only on recorded reasons to believe, supported by material indicating fraudulent or otherwise ineligible input tax credit. The Madras HC found that the authority had adequate basis to invoke the rule, relying on specific circumstances such as absence of vehicle movement, the condition of suppliers&#039; premises, CCTV verification, and suspicious delivery slip sequencing, which pointed to fake bill trading and record manipulation. The court also rejected the plea of disproportionate hardship, holding that the limited blockage did not warrant interference where the statutory conditions were satisfied. The request to unblock the credit ledger was accordingly rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2026 07:46:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=907340" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 886 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793505</link>
      <description>Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017 allows blocking of debit from the electronic credit ledger only on recorded reasons to believe, supported by material indicating fraudulent or otherwise ineligible input tax credit. The Madras HC found that the authority had adequate basis to invoke the rule, relying on specific circumstances such as absence of vehicle movement, the condition of suppliers&#039; premises, CCTV verification, and suspicious delivery slip sequencing, which pointed to fake bill trading and record manipulation. The court also rejected the plea of disproportionate hardship, holding that the limited blockage did not warrant interference where the statutory conditions were satisfied. The request to unblock the credit ledger was accordingly rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793505</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>