M/S SHREYASH RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX MOHALI 1 AND ANR — CWP/14419/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: --ALLOWED on 12th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 11-May-2026

CNR: PHHC010747452026

e-Filing Number

30-04-2026

Filing Number

CWP/26918/2026

Filing Date

01-May-2026

Registration No

CWP/14419/2026

Registration Date

07-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal , Ms. Justice Lapita Banerji

Coram

Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal , Ms. Justice Lapita Banerji

Bench Type

Double

Category

6.42 - GOODS AND SERVICE TAX WRIT HARYANA (INDIRECT) ( 392 )

Judicial Branch

WRITS -I BRANCH

Decision Date

12-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S SHREYASH RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED

    Adv. ABHINAV SOOD

  2. 2.MS SHREYASH RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX MOHALI 1 AND ANR

  2. 2.MS SHREYASH RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED

  3. 3.The Taxation Commissioner Excise

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal,ms. Justice Lapita BanerjiView PDF

    The High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that the blocking of M/s Shreyash Retail Private Limited's Input Tax Credit (ITC) via email was illegal because no formal order was passed by the competent authority recording reasons for the blockage as required by Rule 86-A of the GST Rules, 2017. The court directed the release of the petitioner's ITC but permitted respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/14419/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that the blocking of M/s Shreyash Retail Private Limited's Input Tax Credit (ITC) via email was illegal because no formal order was passed by the competent authority recording reasons for the blockage as required by Rule 86-A of the GST Rules, 2017. The court directed the release of the petitioner's ITC but permitted respondents to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case