Author: inavatiq

Notification no. G.S.R 342(E); Dated: 08.05.2026

The Central Government has notified the Industrial Relations (Central) Rules, 2026, providing a comprehensive procedural framework for implementation of industrial relations provisions.

1. Key Areas Covered Under the Rules

1.1 Works Committee

• Provisions relating to constitution and functioning of works committees
• Aimed at promoting employer–employee cooperation

1.2 Negotiating Union/Negotiating Council

• Prescribes the manner for recognition of:

1. 1. Negotiating unions
   2. Negotiating councils

• Facilitates structured collective bargaining mechanisms

1.3 Industrial Dispute Resolution

Provides mechanisms for:

• Resolution of industrial disputes
• Conciliation and settlement processes

1.4 Voluntary Arbitration

• Lays down procedure for voluntary reference of disputes to arbitration

1.5 Strikes and Lockouts

Prescribes norms governing declaration and conduct of:

• Strikes
• Lockouts

1.6 Lay-off, Retrenchment and Closure

Covers procedural and compliance requirements relating to:

• Lay-offs
• Retrenchment
• Closure of establishments

1.7 Workers Re-skilling Fund

• Includes provisions regarding constitution and utilisation of Workers Re-skilling Fund
• Intended to support skill development of affected workers

1.8 Offences and Penalties

• Specifies penalties and enforcement provisions
• For violations under the industrial relations framework

2. Objective of the Rules

The Rules aim to:

• Streamline industrial relations processes
• Promote industrial harmony and structured negotiations
• Ensure transparent dispute resolution and labour governance

3. Conclusion

The Industrial Relations (Central) Rules, 2026 establish a detailed procedural framework for labour relations, balancing the interests of employers and workers while strengthening mechanisms for industrial peace and compliance.

Click Here To Read The Full Notification

The post Govt. Notifies Industrial Relations (Central) Rules 2026 appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Dr Bais Surgical and Medical Institute (P.) Ltd. vs. Dhananjay Pande [2026] 186 taxmann.com 175 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Alok Aradhe, JJ.
• Shyam Mehta, Sr. Adv., Gagan Sanghi, Ms Farah Hashmi, Varad Kilor, Advs. & Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR for the Appellant.
• Shailesh Madiyal, Mrs Haripriya Padmanabhan, Sr. Advs., Utsav Trivedi, Ms Mugdha Pande, Vikash Shukla, Anchit Singla, Vineeth Prasad, Madhav, Kadam Hans, Harsh, Ayush Agarwal, Ms Anushka Rawal, Ms Prina Gupta, Shiv Vinayak Gupta, Ms Himani Singh, Deepak Sabharwal, Anurya Sabharwal, Ms Snigdha Jha, Advs., Mrs Bina Gupta & Tungesh, AORs for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellant company was incorporated to operate a hospital established by appellant no. 2 and his wife. The hospital faced financial constraints, upon which respondent no. 1 proposed to infuse funds on the condition of being appointed as Managing Director and of converting the hospital into a cardiac facility.

He was appointed Managing Director, and the hospital was converted accordingly. Respondent no. 1 asserted that a subsequent Board meeting allotted 14,75,998 shares to him against share application money paid by him, which the appellants disputed.

Disputes then arose, the Board suspended respondent no. 1, conciliation followed, suspension was withdrawn, and respondent no. 1 withdrew from day-to-day affairs. Respondent no. 1 filed a petition under Sections 397–398 of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging oppression and mismanagement, primarily failure to issue share certificates despite receipt of share application money.

Appellants objected to locus standi under Section 399, contending that respondent no. 1 was not a ‘member’ as his name was not entered in the register of members. The Company Law Board allowed the petition, proceeding on the footing that respondent no. 1 was a member, and directed the company either to allot shares corresponding to his investment or refund the invested amount with interest.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and rejected the preliminary objection regarding maintainability. Thereafter, an appeal was made before the Supreme Court.

It was noted that the expression ‘member’ as appearing under Sections 397 and 398 is to be construed strictly in accordance with Section 41, or whether it must be understood in a broader sense contemplated under Section 2(27) of the Act.

Further, it was noted that the equitable foundation of Sections 397 and 398 must be a guiding factor to not construe the expression ‘member’ in an unduly restrictive or technical manner confined solely to formal entry in the register, thereby frustrating the remedial purpose underlying the legislative scheme.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court held that the expression ‘member’, when employed in the context of remedies under Sections 397 and 398, must therefore be construed with reference to the wider definitional framework provided in Section 2(27) of the Act, and allied provisions governing the rights of members.

Further, the Supreme Court held that since respondent no. 1 was consistently treated as a stakeholder having an interest in appellant company rather than as a mere investor or creditor, the High Court was justified in affirming finding that respondent no. 1 was entitled to be treated as a member for purposes of maintaining proceedings under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Nagpur in CA-7-2004, dated 08-06-2009 (para 31) affirmed

List of Cases Referred to

• Balkrishan Gupta v. Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. (1985) 2 SCC 167 (para 12.5)
• Nanalal Zaver v. Bombay Life Assurance Co. Ltd. (1950) SCR 391 (para 12.5)
• Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. v. Chloro Controls (India) Private Ltd. [2008] 82 SCL 435 (SC) (para 12.5)
• Umesh Kumar Baveja v. IL and FS Transportation Network Ltd. 2013 SCC OnLine Del 6436 (para 13.5)
• World Wide Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. Margarat T. Desor (1990) 1 SCC 536 (para 13.5)
• Shri Balaji Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashok Kavle 1988 SCC OnLine Kar 80 (para 13.5)
• Needle Industries (India) Ltd. v. Needle Industries Newey (India) Holdings Ltd. (1981) 3 SCC 333 (para 22)
• Gulabrai Kalidas Naik v. Laxmidas Lallubhai Patel of Baroda 1977 SCC OnLine Guj 47 (para 25)
• S.V.T. Spinning Mills P. Ltd. v. M. Palanisami 2009 SCC OnLine Mad 3260 (para 27).

The post SC Grants ‘Member’ Status for Oppression and Mismanagement Relief appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Teemage Builders (P.) Ltd., In re - [2026] 185 taxmann.com 607 (AAR-TAMILNADU)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• C. Thiyagarajan & B. Suseel Kumar, Member

Facts of the Case

The applicant, engaged in erection and assembly of precast concrete structures, sought an advance ruling regarding whether it was required to obtain GST registration in States where it executes construction activities using precast structures manufactured at its principal place of business. It was submitted that the applicant manufactures precast components at its registered premises in Tamil Nadu and transports them to construction sites located both within and outside the state for assembly into buildings. The applicant questioned whether such site addresses were required to be registered as additional places of business and whether interstate transportation of materials without consideration would constitute supply under the CGST framework. The matter was accordingly placed before the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR).

AAR Held

The AAR held that the construction sites where the erection and assembly of precast structures are undertaken possess a sufficient degree of permanence along with deployment of human and technical resources, thereby qualifying as a ‘fixed establishment’ under Section 2(85) of the CGST Act and Tamil Nadu GST Act. It was further held that, where such construction sites are located within Tamil Nadu, they may be treated as additional places of business; however, where sites are located in another State, separate registration under Section 22 becomes mandatory. It was observed that the applicant, being treated as a distinct person for each registration under Section 25, undertakes inter-state movement of goods or services even without consideration, which falls within Schedule I and consequently within the scope of supply under Section 7 of the CGST Act and Tamil Nadu GST Act. Accordingly, it was concluded that such activities amount to supply and the applicant is required to obtain registration in the states where construction sites are situated.

List of Cases Referred to

• GEW (India) Pvt Ltd. In re [2021] 132 taxmann.com 139/[2022] 89 GST 112/56 GSTL 109 (AAR – KARNATAKA) (para 3.2)
• T & D Electrical, In re [2020] 116 taxmann.com 390/36 GSTL 239 (AAR – KARNATAKA) (para 3.2)
• Jaimin Engineering Pvt Ltd., In re [2018] 97 taxmann.com 195/69 GST 876/17 GSTL 33 (AAR – RAJASTHAN) (para 3.2).

The post GST Registration Required in Site State for Fixed Establishment | AAR appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Bijoy Das – [2026] 186 taxmann.com 182 (Article)

Can Section 148 Proceedings Initiated Under the 1961 Act Survive the Repeal? The GM Polyplast Constitutional Challenge, the ‘Deemed Information’ Fault Line, and Five Unresolved Issues for Practitioners

1. The Problem – Thousands of Legacy Notices at a Constitutional and Transitional Crossroads

On 1 April 2026, the Income-Tax Act, 1961 stood repealed by Section 536(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 2025. With 536 sections, 16 schedules, and a comprehensive savings architecture under Section 536(2), the new Act intended a seamless transition. On the most frequently litigated question whether reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 of the 1961 Act survive the repeal the official answer is a settled yes – Section 536(2)(c) expressly provides that any proceeding pending as on 1 April 2026 shall continue and be disposed of under the 1961 Act as though the 2025 Act had not been enacted. The Income-Tax Department’s own FAQ portal, updated on 25 April 2026, confirms this with worked examples.

Yet just five days before this article was written, the Bombay High Court in G.M. Polyplast Ltd. v. Union of India (Writ Petition (L) No. 8508 of 2026, B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla JJ., decided 24 April 2026) granted an interim stay of a Section 148 notice issued on 30 March 2025 and issued notice to the Attorney General of India. The Court found that the petition raised “arguable questions” on the constitutional validity of clause (iv) of Explanation 2 to Section 148 and clause (c) of the proviso to Section 148A, as they stood prior to the amendments dated 31 August 2024. The ruling signals that while Section 536(2)(c) settles the transitional continuation question, it does not cure a deeper constitutional infirmity that infected a large class of legacy Section 148 notices issued between April 2024 and March 2025.

This article analyses the two-level problem – first, the Section 536(2)(c) savings architecture and its five transitional fault lines; and second, the constitutional challenge raised in G.M. Polyplast against the pre-August 2024 ‘deemed information’ provisions and its implications across the stock of legacy reassessment notices. Together, these two levels define the ‘reassessment conundrum’ the largest class of pending direct tax litigation entering the ITA 2025 era.

2. The Section 536(2)(c) Savings Architecture

Section 536 of the Income-Tax Act, 2025, titled ‘Repeal and Savings’, is the transitional backbone of the new Act. Sub-section (1) repeals the 1961 Act with effect from 1 April 2026. Sub-section (2) contains 22 sub-clauses addressing specific transitional situations. The provision was notably reinforced by sub-section (4), which applies Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to cover any unforeseen situation not directly addressed by sub-section (2) ensuring that rights and obligations accrued under the 1961 Act are preserved beyond what is explicitly stated.

For reassessment proceedings, the operative sub-clauses are Section 536(2)(a), (b), and (c). Sub-clause (a) preserves the ‘previous operation’ of the repealed Act and anything duly done or suffered thereunder. Sub-clause (b) preserves any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the 1961 Act. Sub-clause (c) the most directly relevant provides that any proceeding pending as on 1 April 2026 before any income-tax authority, tribunal or court shall be continued and disposed of under the 1961 Act as though the 2025 Act had not been enacted.

The practical effect, as confirmed by the CBDT FAQ dated 25 April 2026, is comprehensive:

(i) a Section 148A(1) notice issued before 1 April 2026 continues under the 1961 Act even if the Section 148A(3) order and Section 148 notice are passed after 1 April 2026;

(ii) fresh reassessment proceedings for Assessment Years up to 2026-27 may be initiated under the 1961 Act after 1 April 2026;

(iii) the approval hierarchy under Section 151 of the 1961 Act governs even post-1 April 2026 reassessments for prior years; and

(iv) the return filed in response to a Section 148 notice must follow 1961 Act forms, not the new Tax Year framework.

3. The GM Polyplast Constitutional Challenge – What the Court Actually Held

The GM Polyplast ruling arises from a Section 148 notice issued on 30 March 2025 – three days before the ITA 2025’s effective date for Assessment Year 2021-22. The notice relied on Explanation 2 to Section 148 (as it stood prior to 31 August 2024), which deemed the Assessing Officer to have ‘information’ in cases where:

(i) a search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A was initiated;

(ii) a survey under Section 133A was conducted;

(iii) assets, documents or liabilities discovered in a search/survey on a third party related to the assessee; or

(iv) information was received under an agreement referred to in Section 90/90A.

The deeming mechanism was a legal fiction – the AO need not have actual evidence; the fact of a search, survey, or third-party discovery was itself treated as ‘information suggesting income has escaped assessment’.

The Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, with effect from 31 August 2024, significantly amended Explanation 2. The post-amendment version tightened the threshold – the AO must now have specific ‘information’ as defined under Section 148 itself, rather than relying on the deeming fiction. The government’s own amendment implicitly acknowledged that the pre-August 2024 version had provided overly broad deeming powers. This is the interpretive foundation of the GM Polyplast petitioner’s challenge – if the government found it necessary to tighten the deemed-information provision in August 2024, the pre-August 2024 version was defective and notices issued under it are constitutionally suspect under Article 14 as arbitrary and unreasonable.

The Bombay High Court, through Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, found that the petition raised ‘arguable questions’ of constitutional validity – the standard for issuing Rule and granting interim stay. Three features of the Order deserve attention:

(i) the Court issued notice to the Attorney General of India, indicating the constitutional question is significant enough for Union of India’s highest law officer to defend;

(ii) the Court granted a stay, preventing the Revenue from proceeding with the reassessment pending final adjudication; and

(iii) the Court noted the specific targeting of the pre-31-August-2024 version – implicitly recognising that the post-August 2024 position may not suffer the same infirmity.

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post [Opinion] The Reassessment Conundrum Under the Income Tax Act 2025 appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Circular No. A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 09, Dated 06.05.2026

1. Introduction

The Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) has issued the Foreign Exchange Management (Authorised Persons) Regulations, 2026 (“AP Regulations, 2026”) with the objective of rationalising the regulatory framework governing Authorised Persons under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (“FEMA”). The revised framework seeks to improve the delivery of foreign exchange services while easing compliance requirements applicable to regulated entities.

The AP Regulations, 2026 have been notified vide Notification No. FEMA 401/2026-RB dated April 30, 2026 and published in the Official Gazette on May 06, 2026. Consequent to the issuance of the revised regulations, RBI has amended the Master Direction – Money Changing Activities and the Master Direction – Other Remittance Facilities. Additionally, several earlier A.P. (DIR Series) Circulars issued between 2000 and 2015 have been superseded.

2. Discontinuation of Franchisee Model

One of the significant changes introduced under the revised framework relates to the discontinuation of the franchisee model for money changing activities. Earlier, Authorised Dealer Category-I (“AD Category-I”) banks, Authorised Dealer Category-II (“AD Category-II”) entities and Full Fledged Money Changers (“FFMCs”) were permitted to enter into agency or franchisee arrangements for carrying out restricted money changing business, including conversion of foreign currency notes, coins and travellers’ cheques into Indian Rupees.

RBI has now clarified that authorised persons shall not enter into any fresh franchisee arrangements henceforth. Existing franchisee arrangements are required to be discontinued gradually, and in any event, within two years from May 06, 2026.

3. Revision in Reporting Framework

The revised framework also modifies the reporting requirements applicable to FFMCs and non-bank AD Category-II entities. Under the earlier framework, such entities were required to maintain minimum Net Owned Funds (“NOF”) on an ongoing basis and submit annual audited balance sheets along with statutory auditor certificates relating to NOF.

The AP Regulations, 2026 replace the earlier NOF-based reporting mechanism with a revised certification framework based on net worth and annual forex turnover. Accordingly, FFMCs and non-bank AD Category-II entities are now required to submit annual audited balance sheets along with statutory auditor certificates regarding net worth by October 31 every year, and separate statutory auditor certificates regarding annual forex turnover by April 30 every year.

4. Rationalisation of Existing Directions

As part of the revised framework, RBI has omitted several provisions from the Master Direction – Money Changing Activities, including provisions relating to authorisation, operational requirements and other procedural compliances. RBI has also omitted Para 2 of the Master Direction – Other Remittance Facilities.

The amendments reflect RBI’s broader objective of consolidating and streamlining the regulatory architecture governing foreign exchange and money changing activities under FEMA. Further, various earlier A.P. (DIR Series) Circulars issued between 2000 and 2015 stand superseded pursuant to issuance of the AP Regulations, 2026.

Click Here To Read The Full Circular

The post RBI Notifies FEMA Authorised Persons Regulations 2026 appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Integrated Promoters (P.) Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2026] 185 taxmann.com 971 (Delhi-Trib.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member & Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member
• Pranav Yadav, Adv. for the Appellant.
• Jitender Singh, CIT-DR for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee declared rental income of Rs. 8.25 lakhs in the return of income. As per the amended rent deed executed between the parties due to Covid-19, rent for April to June 2021 was waived, rent for July 2021 was fixed at Rs. 0.75 lakh, and the monthly rent for the remaining period was fixed at Rs. 1.50 lakh. The assessee stated that it raised invoices only for the period from July to December and declared a total rent of Rs. 8.25 lakhs.

During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) alleged that the assessee had shown rental income of Rs. 8.25 lakhs. In contrast, the actual rental income was Rs. 13.75 lakhs, resulting in a difference of Rs. 5.50 lakhs. AO made an addition under Section 22 after allowing 30% deduction under Section 24(a) on the alleged difference.

Aggrieved-assessee filed an appeal to CIT(A) against the additions made by the AO. The CIT(A) upheld the additions. The assessee filed an appeal to the Tribunal.

ITAT Held

The Tribunal held that the assessee declared rental income in the return of income and the GST returns. The GST returns showed a total rent of Rs. 11.75 lakhs, with a credit note of Rs. 3.85 lakhs, leaving a balance of Rs. 8.25 lakhs, as per the GST Act. The assessee raised invoices for the rent of a certain period and declared the rental income in the GST returns. The GST returns were filed without any qualification or disclaimer. Therefore, the assessee had received rent of only Rs. 8.25 lakhs, which was declared in the GST returns.

Since the assessee had not raised any bills for the rent of the remaining period, there was no occasion to hold that the assessee also received the rent for the remaining period. Accordingly, the additions made by AO were to be deleted.

The post ITAT Deletes Addition on Waived Rental Income During Covid appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Global Financial Insights is a weekly feature for the Accounts and Audit Module subscribers of Taxmann.com. It provides you with the latest updates on financial reporting and auditing practices from across the globe. Here is this week’s financial update:

1. IFRS Foundation Revises Due Process Handbook to Align IASB and ISSB Standard-Setting Processes

The IFRS Foundation Trustees have issued a revised Due Process Handbook that outlines the procedures to be followed by the IASB and the ISSB in developing, amending, and maintaining Standards.

The revisions primarily reflect the establishment of the ISSB and clarify that both the IASB and ISSB follow the same rigorous, transparent, and inclusive due process framework.

The updated Handbook also incorporates stakeholder feedback received during the public consultation process and includes enhancements relating to:

• Post-implementation reviews of the Standard
• The role of the IFRS Interpretations Committee
• Consultation procedures for minor amendments
• Review processes for educational materials

Importantly, the Handbook now formally sets out the due process for amendments to SASB Standards, which entities are required to consider while applying ISSB Standards. Such amendments will be subject to public consultation and deliberation in ISSB public meetings.

Source –  The International Financial Reporting Standards

2. FRC Issues Final Revisions to UK Auditing Standards on Fraud and Going Concern

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has published final revisions to:

• ISA (UK) 240, The Auditor’s Responsibilities Relating to Fraud in an Audit of Financial Statements
• ISA (UK) 570, Going Concern

The revisions follow public consultation and align UK auditing requirements with the latest amendments issued by the IAASB to the corresponding international standards.

Key highlights include:

• Enhanced auditor responsibilities relating to fraud risk assessment.
• Greater transparency in audit reporting, particularly for publicly traded entities.
• Strengthened guidance on evaluating and reporting going concern assumptions.
• Incorporation of lessons from recent corporate failures and evolving stakeholder expectations.

The FRC noted that many of these enhanced requirements were already reflected in UK practice, as the UK standards had been updated ahead of the international revisions. Accordingly, only a limited additional implementation effort is expected for auditors.

The revised standards will be effective for audits of financial statements for periods beginning on or after 15 December 2026.

Source – Financial Reporting Council

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post [Global Financial Insights] IFRS Foundation Revises Due Process Handbook and More appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Premlata Rakesh Jain, In re [2026] 186 taxmann.com 31 (AAR-GUJARAT)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Sushma Vora & Vishal Malani, Member
• Mehul Pandya, Adv. for the Applicant.

Facts of the Case

The applicant, a GST-registered provider of storage and warehousing services, sought clarity on eligibility of Input Tax Credit (ITC) in respect of cement, steel, beams, columns and works contract services used for the construction of a warehouse or shed intended for storage and leasing activities. It was stated that the applicant was in the process of constructing a warehouse and would procure construction materials and services for the said purpose. The applicant submitted that ITC on construction-related goods and services was earlier treated as blocked under Section 17(5) of the CGST Act, even when used for furtherance of business. The matter was accordingly placed before the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR).

AAR Held

The AAR held that the eligibility of ITC was required to be examined in light of Section 17(5)(c) and Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act read with Section 16 of the CGST Act. It was observed that the Supreme Court in the case of Chief Commissioner of Central GST v. Safari Retreats (P.) Ltd. had distinguished the expression ‘plant and machinery’ under clause (c) from ‘plant or machinery’ under clause (d), and clarified that the statutory explanation excludes land, building or other civil structures. It was further held that warehouse construction using cement, steel, beams, columns and works contract services results in the creation of immovable property in the nature of building or civil structure, which is specifically excluded from the ambit of ‘plant and machinery’ under the explanation to Section 17. It was concluded that ITC on such goods and services is not admissible.

List of Cases Referred to

• Chief Commissioner of Central GST v. Safari Retreats (P.) Ltd. [2024] 167 taxmann.com 73/106 GST 250/90 GSTL 3 (SC) (para 8).

The post ITC on Warehouse Construction Blocked u/s 17(5) | AAR appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Hemang Bipin Varaiya vs. State of Maharashtra [2026] 185 taxmann.com 557 (Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ.
• Nirmal Pagaria for the Petitioner.
• Ms Shruti D. Vyas, Addl. Govt. Pleader & Aditya R. Deolekar, AGP for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged the action of blocking Input Tax Credit (ITC) in the electronic credit ledger under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules and Maharashtra GST Rules. It was contended that a show cause notice (SCN) was issued proposing such blocking; however, the electronic credit ledger was blocked even before the petitioner had a chance to reply and before the SCN proceedings were completed. The petitioner submitted that at the relevant time, the electronic credit ledger reflected a negative balance and no available credit existed, which could be subject to blocking. It was further contended that Rule 86A did not permit negative blocking. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that Rule 86A of the CGST Rules empowers restriction of use of credit only to the extent of available balance in the electronic credit ledger under Section 49 of the CGST Act, and does not contemplate any concept of negative blocking. It was further held that where no ITC exists in the ledger, any action seeking to block beyond such available credit is ultra vires Rule 86A and inconsistent with the statutory scheme governing utilisation of ITC. It was concluded that the impugned action exceeded the permissible limits of law. Accordingly, the Court directed the unblocking of the electronic credit ledger.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Rawman Metal & Alloys v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax [2025] 179 taxmann.com 387/112 GST 585/[2026] 104 GSTL 57 (Bombay) (para 6) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• Samay Alloys India (P.) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [2022] 135 taxmann.com 243/91 GST 338/61 GSTL 421 (Gujarat) (para 5)
• Rawman Metal & Alloys v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax [2025] 179 taxmann.com 387/112 GST 585/[2026] 104 GSTL 57 (Bombay) (para 5).

The post Negative ITC Blocking Under Rule 86A Not Allowed | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Amrendra Jha vs. Punjab National Bank [2026] 185 taxmann.com 715 (HC-Patna)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ. & Harish Kumar, J.
• Nalin Vilochan Tiwary, Avinash Kumar, Ajay Kumar Mehta & Kumar Satyam, Advs. for the Appellant.
• Mritunjay Kumar, Ajit Kumar & Suryakant Kumar, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellant was an employee of the respondent bank. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant, and the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of compulsory retirement, which the Appellate Authority affirmed.

The appellant filed a writ petition seeking the quashing of the appellate order affirming the punishment. When the writ petition was taken up, the respondent bank raised a preliminary objection to its maintainability on the ground that a statutory alternative remedy was available before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court.

Taking note of the statutory alternative remedy and the delay attributable to the long pendency of the writ, the Single Judge directed the appellant to approach the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, ordered expeditious disposal within 90 days, and directed the bank to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

It was noted that Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench is a power exercised in appellate jurisdiction by the High Court as a Court of correction of errors, if any. If there is no evidence of any perversity, palpable unreasonableness or any inconsistency with any particular position of law, order cannot be interfered with in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

High Court Held

The High Court held that since there was no perversity in the order of the Single Judge, the Letters Patent Appeal against said order was to be dismissed.

List of Cases Referred to

• Awadhesh Singh v. Punjab National Bank [CWJC No. 5753 of 2018] (para 2)
• Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors v. Chief General Manager [Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15596 of 2022] (para 5).

The post HC Dismisses LPA Over Availability of Statutory Remedy appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source