The issue was whether authorities can block ITC beyond available balance. The Court held that Rule 86A allows restriction only on existing credit and does not permit negative blocking.
The Court quashed the notice as it was based on a factually incorrect audit premise and lacked specific details. It held that vague notices violate natural justice and cannot sustain tax demands.
The Court held that issuing an order before the reply deadline violates natural justice. Even if penalty is paid, authorities must consider objections and pass a reasoned order.
The Court found that the rejection was only a communication and not a legally valid order. It remitted the matter for fresh decision after proper hearing and consideration of all issues.
The Court held that administrative delay in releasing seized jewellery violated CBDT-prescribed timelines. It ruled that increased bank guarantee due to rising gold prices cannot be imposed on the taxpayer.
The High Court held that interest under Section 234B must be waived where conflicting judicial decisions created uncertainty regarding tax exemption. The rejection of the waiver application was set aside.
The High Court set aside GST registration cancellations because the show cause notices did not propose retrospective cancellation. Authorities must clearly notify taxpayers before taking such action.
The Court allowed bail after observing that the accused had been in custody since November 2025 and the trial involving extensive documentary evidence may take considerable time.
The High Court set aside the cancellation of GST registration because the order was cryptic and lacked reasons or reference to supporting material. The Court held that cancellation orders must reflect application of mind and clearly state the grounds for such action.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that authorities cannot block input tax credit beyond the balance available in the Electronic Credit Ledger. Rule 86A allows restriction only on credit actually available at the time of invocation.
