High Court Quashes ITC Blockage Order under Rule 86A; Directs Restoration of Rs.12.8 lacs:

High Court quashes ITC blockage of Rs.12,84,273/- under Rule 86A as invalid where ledger balance was NIL; directs restoration within 15 days

Court holds that power under Rule 86A can be exercised only when Input Tax Credit exists in the electronic credit ledger on the date of blocking.

Meetu Kumari

Oct 21, 2025

Last update on Oct 21, 2025

High Court Quashes ITC Blockage Order under Rule 86A; Directs Restoration of Rs. 12.8 lacs The petitioner had challenged an order issued under Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, whereby the department blocked Input Tax Credit (ITC) of Rs. 12,84,273/-. It was undisputed that at the time of passing the order, the petitioner’s electronic credit ledger showed a nil balance. The department nonetheless invoked Rule 86A, alleging that the credit was fraudulently availed and could therefore be blocked irrespective of its current availability. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that Rule 86A, by its very wording, contemplates blocking only the amount available in the electronic credit ledger. Since no credit existed on the date of the blocking order, the invocation was without authority of law. The department contended that the legislative intent behind Rule 86A was to prevent misuse of credit and that restricting its application only to available balances would render the rule ineffective. The court examined the rival contentions in light of the language of the provision and the precedents from other High Courts interpreting Rule 86A. Issue Before the Court Whether powers under Rule 86A can be invoked to block Input Tax Credit when no credit was available in the electronic credit ledger on the date of the order. Court Decided: The Court held that under a plain interpretation of Rule 86A, the facility to block ITC can be exercised only in the case of credit that is available in the electronic credit ledger. In case such availability is absent, there is no jurisdiction to invoke the provision. The Bench observed that fiscal statutes must be strictly construed, and where the language of a rule is clear, it is impermissible to add or infer legislative intent beyond what is expressly stated. The concept of “negative blocking,” i.e., preventing utilisation of future or non-existent credit, was held to be outside the scope of the rule. Relying on the reasoning of the Gujarat, Telangana, and Delhi High Courts and noting the Supreme Court’s refusal to interfere with those decisions, the Court preferred the literal interpretation over the purposive approach adopted elsewhere. Finding that the petitioner’s ledger reflected a nil balance on the date of the impugned order, it declared the blocking action without jurisdiction. Thus, the impugned order dated 09 December 2024 was quashed, and the department was directed to restore the blocked ITC of Rs.12,84,273/- within fifteen days. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below

About Author

Meetu Kumari

Content Manager

Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.