BharatTaxGST

M/S Shreyash Retail Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax Mohali 1 And Anr

Original PDF →
CWP/14419/2026HC Punjab and HaryanaGSTCNR PHHC01074745202612 May 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
CWP-14419-2 IN THE M/s Shreyash R The Assistant CORAM : H H Present : M (t M M fo M DEEPAK SIB T input tax credi (Annexure P-1 blocked withou 2. L 3. R (hereinafter r Commissioner rank of Assist the assessee’s reasons to beli 2026 (O&M) Sr. No.229 E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH CWP-1441 Date of De Retail Private Limited Versus Commissioner of State Tax and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. Kumar Vislaksha, Advocate through video conferencing) Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate, Mr. Ajitesh Dayal, Advocate or the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Additional A *** BAL, J. (Oral) his petition is directed against th it conveyed to the petitioner thr 1) on the ground that the petition

ut passing any order. earned counsel for the parties ha Rule 86A of the Central Goods a referred to as ‘the Rules’) r or an officer authorized by him tant Commissioner, can block a s electronic credit ledger but ieve that the ITC available in th B AND HARYANA AT H 19-2026 (O&M) ecision : 12.05.2026 …Petitioner

another…Respondents AK SIBAL A BANERJI Advocate General, Punjab he blocking of the petitioner’s rough email dated 13.01.2026 ner’s input tax credit has been ave been heard. and Services Tax Rules, 2017 clearly provides that the m in this regard, not below the an assessee’s ITC available in only when such officer has he assessee’s electronic credit VANDANA 2026.05.14 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-14419-2

ledger has bee ineligible to av

4.

It existing in it competent auth the petitioner’ blocked. Thus Rule 86-A of the petitioner’ order its releas afresh against

5.

D

May 12, 2026 vandana

Whether speak Whether repor 2026 (O&M) en fraudulently availed by the as vail the ITC existing in its electro t is not disputed that prior to blo ts electronic credit ledger, no hority recording therein the reaso ’s ITC, existing in its electron s, the impugned blocking of the the Rules. Therefore, we unhes s ITC, existing in its electroni se. However, the respondents w the petitioner in accordance with Disposed of. (DEEPA

J (LAPIT

J

6

king/reasoned :

Yes/No rtable :

Yes/No ssessee or that the assessee is onic credit ledger. ocking of the petitioner’s ITC o order was passed by the ons as to why he believed that nic credit ledger, should be petitioner’s ITC contravenes sitantly hold that the blocking ic credit ledger is illegal and would be at liberty to proceed h law. AK SIBAL) JUDGE

TA BANERJI) JUDGE

VANDANA 2026.05.14 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.