One of the Mexican Supreme Court's most relevant rulings for companies so far this second half of the year concerns something as routine as invoicing. On August 20, 2026, the full Mexican Supreme Court (SCJN) resolved conflicting precedents case 55/2026 and held that a provisional injunction may not be granted in an amparo proceeding against the order of the Mexican Tax Administration Service (SAT) that halts the issuance of digital tax invoices (CFDI) while it verifies whether they are false.

In simple terms: if the SAT stops your invoicing under article 49 Bis of the Federal Tax Code (Código Fiscal de la Federación), you will no longer be able to obtain a provisional injunction through amparo to keep invoicing while the review is ongoing. Amparo remains available to challenge the measure, but not as a way to immediately reactivate CFDI issuance.

What the article 49 Bis procedure is

Article 49 Bis of the Federal Tax Code allows the SAT to carry out a special verification when it presumes that the CFDI issued by a taxpayer may be false. From the moment the order is served, the authority suspends the issuance of invoices and that measure remains in place until the procedure concludes.

According to specialized analyses of the procedure, the taxpayer has five business days to submit evidence rebutting the presumption, and the procedure lasts a maximum of 24 business days. During that time, the company cannot invoice, which makes it hard to bill customers and operate normally.

What the Court decided

Before this ruling, two collegiate circuit courts held opposing positions: one considered the injunction available and the other rejected it. The Court upheld the second view. The reporting justice, María Estela Ríos González, explained that an injunction in amparo requires weighing the appearance of a valid claim against the public interest and public order at the same time.

The conclusion was that granting the injunction in these cases could facilitate unlawful conduct and hinder the authorities' audit powers and the fight against tax evasion. Because it resolves conflicting precedents, the decision sets a binding precedent for the courts that hear these amparo cases.

The amparo proceeding remains available to challenge the merits of the case, but it no longer serves as a fast track to reactivate invoicing while the verification runs.

What it means for your company

The practical effect is that, if your company receives an order of this kind, the real defense plays out within the SAT procedure itself and in very few days. If you cannot prove within that period that your transactions are real, the halt to your invoicing may be extended and affect your cash flow, your customer relationships and your performance under your contracts.

The risk is not only for the issuer. Companies that receive invoices from a supplier that enters this procedure should also be alert, because the validity of those invoices may be called into question, which affects deductions and tax credits.

This ruling adds to an environment of greater pressure on companies that invoice sham transactions. On September 7, 2026, one day before the delivery of the 2027 Economic Package, the president of the Political Coordination Board of the Chamber of Deputies, Ricardo Monreal, signaled that measures against tax evasion and avoidance were coming.

What we recommend doing now

  1. Build substance files for your main transactions: signed contracts, purchase orders, proof of delivery, communications and proof of payment.
  2. Review your suppliers and periodically verify that they are not on SAT lists or in procedures that compromise their invoices.
  3. Include clauses in your contracts requiring the supplier to issue valid CFDI, provide support for the transaction and be liable for damages if its invoices are challenged.
  4. Set an internal protocol to respond in hours, not days, if you receive a SAT order: who receives it, who gathers evidence and who files it.
  5. Have a continuity plan for collections and deliveries if your invoicing is temporarily halted.
CounselHub recommendation: treat substance documentation as a company asset. An organized file by customer and supplier, with well drafted contracts and evidence of each transaction, is what will allow you to respond within the five business day deadline. Also review your purchase and services agreements to include the supplier's tax obligations, indemnification and the right to withhold payments if its CFDI are challenged.

In this case, the Court gave priority to the collective interest in maintaining effective audit mechanisms. For companies, the lesson is clear: documentary prevention is worth more than any injunction.