BACKGROUNDEmerson Process Management (India) Pvt. Ltd., registered under GST in multiple states including Gujarat and Maharashtra, amalgamated M/s Pentair Valves and Controls India Pvt. Ltd. into itself pursuant to an NCLT-approved scheme of amalgamation dated 14.11.2019. As part of the merger, all assets and liabilities of the transferor company — including its unutilized ITC balance — were transferred to the petitioner. The unutilized ITC pertained primarily to CGST, having been transitioned from the Central Excise regime through Form GST TRAN-1. When the petitioner attempted to transfer this ITC through Form GST ITC-02 on the online GST portal, the portal displayed an error message: "Transferee and Transferor should be of the same State - U.T." Despite multiple reminders dated 08.08.2022 and 26.03.2024, and several personal visits to the jurisdictional officer, no resolution was provided. The petitioner approached the Gujarat High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the portal restriction as illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 18(3) of the CGST Act read with Rule 41 of the CGST Rules. COURT OBSERVATIONS (Verbatim)On the illegal endorsement on statutory form:"We find that such incorporation has been made in the statutory form itself without referring to any provisions under which the same is passed. In our considered opinion, the reasons assigned in the statutory form should be separate, clearly demarcating the opinion of the department and shall not be embossed on the statutory form which has been done in the present case.""The statutory ITC form which is issued under Rule 41 of the CGST Rules does not contain any such column of specifying or recording of the opinion of the concerned officer assigning his/her reason for not accepting the statutory form."On absence of statutory prohibition:"We do not find any convincing reason to take a contrary view to that taken by the Bombay High Court. The transfer of the ITC on amalgamation of the company is permissible as per the provision of Section 18(3) of the CGST Act read with Rule 41 of the CGST Rules. Neither of the provision prohibits or debars transfer of the ITC on the ground that the transferee and the transferor company are located in different states.""We are of the opinion that the respondent department cannot incorporate something in a statutory form ITC-02 on GST Portal which is absent in the statutory provisions. The remark which is mentioned on the Form GST ITC-02 does not find place in the statute. Neither the statute permits nor debars the transfer of ITC after the scheme of amalgamation has been approved by the NCLT. Such an action of restricting the transfer of ITC on the on-line GST portal is de hors the intention of the provision of Section 18(3) of the CGST Act read with Rule 41 of the CGST Rules."On manual processing (interim direction):"We clarify that till proper amendment or mechanism is provided in uploading the Form ITC-02, the respondent department shall accept such forms manually and process the same. We direct that the petitioner should be allowed to fill up the Form ITC-02 manually. The same shall be processed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of order of this Court." FINAL VERDICTWrit petition allowed. Rule made absolute. The GST portal restriction of "same State/UT" in Form ITC-02 held to be without any statutory basis and illegal. Department directed to accept Form ITC-02 manually and process transfer of CGST ITC within six weeks. 👍  

Case Facts:The petitioner challenged a show-cause notice proposing blocking of ITC under Rule 86A and seeking restoration of ₹1.96 crore. The allegation was that the petitioner issued invoices without actual supply of goods, enabling M/s. Million Lights to avail wrongful ITC. The petitioner contended that Rule 86A applies only when ITC is wrongly availed by the assessee itself and not by its customer. The department asserted ongoing investigation and alleged admissions regarding issuance of invoices without supply.Court Decision:The Court held that Rule 86A empowers restriction on utilization of ITC only when the credit in the electronic credit ledger of the concerned assessee is fraudulently availed or is ineligible under specified circumstances such as absence of supply, non-existent supplier, non-payment of tax, or lack of valid documents. The Rule is limited to these conditions and cannot be invoked otherwise. In the present case, the allegation was that the petitioner issued invoices without actual supply, leading to wrongful ITC availment by the recipient. Such allegation does not pertain to ITC availed by the petitioner itself. Therefore, invocation of Rule 86A against the petitioner was improper as the statutory conditions were not satisfied.

Facts:An FIR was registered alleging an organised racket involving forged LL.B. degrees and fake academic certificates used to impersonate advocates. Respondent No. 2 allegedly procured and used a forged law degree to practice as an advocate and facilitate similar fraud for others. The Sessions Court rejected bail, but the High Court granted bail relying on disputed documents and claims of innocence. The appellant challenged the bail order citing suppression of multiple FIRs, serious criminal antecedents, and reliance on forged material. Court Decision:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail, holding it to be perverse and legally unsustainable. It held that the High Court relied on disputed and prima facie forged documents, ignored material evidence, and failed to consider criminal antecedents and gravity of offences. The Court emphasized that suppression of material facts, including multiple FIRs, vitiates the exercise of judicial discretion in granting bail. It clarified that appellate courts can annul bail where the order suffers from illegality, perversity, or non-consideration of relevant factors, irrespective of post-bail conduct. The prayer for transfer of investigation to a special agency was rejected as investigation was complete and no exceptional circumstances were shown. Cases Referred by Court:•    State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan •    Yogendra Pal Singh v. Raghvendra Singh •    Manik Madhukar Sarve v. Vitthal Damuji Meher •    Ajwar v. Waseem •    Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar •    P v. State of Madhya Pradesh •    Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana •    Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee •    Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh •    Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh •    Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar •    Disha v. State of Gujarat •    K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police •    Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha  

BackgroundThe petitioner, Kalaimahal Cements Private Limited (GSTIN: 33AAGCK4135K1ZK), had its ITC blocked vide Reference No. BL3312250000204 dated 05.12.2025 for the tax period 01.10.2025 to 31.12.2025 under Rule 86A of the GST Rules by the Commercial Tax Officer, Virudhachalam Assessment Circle, Cuddalore.Crucially, on the previous day i.e., 04.12.2025, an inspection was conducted by the authorities, wherein statements were recorded from the petitioner's Managing Director, Ms. R. Kavitha Ramesh, from which it was apparent that the petitioner had been availing ITC on the basis of bogus/block invoices. It was in this background that the ITC was blocked on 05.12.2025.The petitioner raised two grounds before the Court: (i) that there was no valid basis for blocking ITC under Rule 86A; and (ii) that only an Assistant Commissioner or a Senior Officer is competent to block ITC under Rule 86A, and therefore the blocking by the Commercial Tax Officer was without jurisdiction.Court Observations (Verbatim)On the first ground of challenge to blocking:"It is in this background, the Input Tax Credit was blocked on 05.12.2025 vide impugned proceedings. Therefore, the challenge to the blocking of the Input Tax Credit under Rule 86A of the respective GST Rules on this count cannot be countenanced."On the second ground regarding competency/jurisdiction, the Court relied upon the Madurai Bench decision in W.P.(MD).No.21670 of 2025 and quoted the following observations therefrom:"18. Rules 86A(2) contemplates that the Commissioner or the Officer authorised by him under Sub Rule 1, may, upon being satisfied that the condition disallowing the debit of electronic credit no longer existed and allow such credit.19. However, considering the fact that notice has been issued in Form GST DRC 01, it is unlikely that the power will be exercised under Rule 86A(2) of the respective GST Rules. The question as to whether the proceedings were within the power of the State Tax Officer and contrary to the requirements of the circular dated 02.11.2021 bearing reference CBEC-20/16/05/2021-GST is concerned, it has to be construed that the senior official would have authorised the blocking of the credit.20. There is a clear embargo under Rule 86A, officer below the rank of Assistant Commissioner not to block where credit has been availed fraudulently or the credit is ineligible. However, the blocking would have been made with the permission of the senior in the hierarchy. That apart, it is the internal matter and particularly in the light of the fact that the notice has been issued in Form GST DRC 01 dated 07.07.2025 by State Tax Officer. The State Tax Officer is a proper officer for issuance of show cause notice also proper officer under Rule 74. Therefore, the objection on the jurisdiction cannot be countenanced."Final VerdictThe Writ Petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the blocking of ITC in view of the Managing Director's own admission during inspection. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a representation before the concerned officer, who shall pass appropriate orders within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall be heard before final orders are passed.  

BACKGROUNDAn Order-in-Original dated 18th December 2023 confirmed a tax liability against the Petitioner. The Petitioner's appeal before the Appellate Authority was rejected by an Order-in-Appeal dated 12th June 2024. The Petitioner then filed an appeal before the GST Tribunal on 5th February 2026 against the Order-in-Appeal.FACTSThe Petitioner received demand intimations by e-mails dated 3rd February 2026 and 6th February 2026. It informed the Respondent that the demand amount had been deposited/adjusted through Form GST DRC-03A and that the appeal was pending before the Tribunal. Despite this, a Recovery Notice dated 6th February 2026 was issued, and coercive steps were sought to be taken. The Petitioner approached the Bombay High Court under Article 226, seeking quashing of the Intimation and Recovery Notices and interim stay, on the ground that the Tribunal has no express power under the CGST Act/Rules to grant interim stay of recovery, and hence no efficacious alternative remedy existed. COURT OBSERVATIONS (Verbatim)On the scope of Section 113:"Considering the nature of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 113 to pass such orders 'as it thinks fit'... it cannot be inferred, that although the Tribunal is vested with the jurisdiction to pass substantive final orders on the Appeal... it would nonetheless lack jurisdiction to pass appropriate interim orders. The power to grant interim relief, including protection against recovery pending the Appeal, is inherent and incidental to the appellate jurisdiction conferred upon the Tribunal."On rejecting the Petitioner's proposition:"Also, on first principles, we are unable to accept a proposition that although the Appellate Tribunal is a statutory forum created under the scheme of Sections 111, 112 and 113 of the CGST Act, 2017, it would nevertheless be powerless to grant interim relief. Such an interpretation would render the appellate remedy illusory and defeat the legislative intent..."On the High Court not being a substitute forum:"This can never be the legislative intent, that the High Court should function as a forum for grant of interim relief, in matters squarely falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal. This is inconceivable."On the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025 (Rules 10 & 29) supporting inherent power to grant interim relief — referred to as making "the position crystal clear."Reliance placed on Income Tax Officer, Cannanore vs. M. K. Mohammed Kunhi, 1968 SCC OnLine SC 71, where the Supreme Court held (in the context of Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a provision "quite similar" to Section 113 of the CGST Act):"It is a firmly established rule that an express grant of statutory power carries with it by necessary implication the authority to use all reasonable means to make such grant effective... The powers which have been conferred by Section 254 on the Appellate Tribunal with widest possible amplitude must carry with them by necessary implication all powers and duties incidental and necessary to make the exercise of those powers fully effective." CASE LAW REFERREDCaseCitationIncome Tax Officer, Cannanore vs. M. K. Mohammed Kunhi1968 SCC OnLine SC 71 FINAL VERDICTThe Court held that the GST Appellate Tribunal does have inherent jurisdiction to grant interim relief/stay of recovery pending appeal, and directed the Petitioner to move an interim application before the Tribunal within two weeks. As limited interim protection, the Recovery Notice dated 6th February 2026 was directed not to be acted upon until the Tribunal decides the interim application. Petition disposed of with no order as to costs; merits of the underlying dispute kept open.