Delhi High Court
For revenue
Case-law directory
Every ruling, in plain sight.
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
4 rulings found
Delhi High Court
Where petitioner’s ITC in electronic credit ledger was blocked under Rule 86A, requested adjustment of blocked credit for pre-deposit against confirmed IGST demand was declined, since blocking does not constitute payment or appropriation towards an adjudicated demand and debit cannot occur until restriction is removed or modified, thus only unblocked ECL credit may be used for pre-deposit, not mandatorily cash ledger
Madras High Court
Where petitioner's electronic credit ledger was blocked under Rule 86A upon finding of bill trading by supplier, and petitioner sought to use blocked ITC for appellate pre-deposit under Section 49(4) read with Section 107, use of credit ledger for pre-deposit is ordinarily permitted but is barred when credit stands blocked, as Section 49(4) does not confer absolute right to such use during blockage
Madras High Court
Where assessee obtained interim stay against recovery measures initiated following assessment, such stay order only suspended recovery action and did not affect prior blocking of electronic credit ledger, meaning amounts in electronic credit ledger could not be debited for recovery during validity of stay, but order itself did not unfreeze or impact pre-existing ledger blockage. GST: Where electronic credit ledger was blocked after assessment for recovery of dues, such negative blocking fell within recovery modes under Section 79, as its wide ambit covers deduction from money or goods, garnishee action, distraint and sale, and recovery with Collector or Magistrate assistance, whereas Rule 86A deals only with provisional restriction before liability determination, so plea against negative blocking under Section 79 was rejected
Madras High Court
Where manufacturer of TMT steel bars had credits blocked under Rule 86A due to evidence that four supplier premises were vacant with no infrastructure, no vehicle movements were recorded for alleged deliveries, and documentation anomalies indicated fake transactions, power to block ITC was validly exercised based on adequate material, and writ seeking unblocking was not justified