2021 (9) TMI 1365 - HC - GST

Unblocking of Input Tax Credit - no SCN issued - Invocation of Rule 86 A of the CGST Rules, 2017 objected to on the ground that there has to be a credit of Input Tax available in the Electronic Credit Ledger - HELD THAT - Issue Notice, returnable on 15.09.2021. Learned AGP to take the necessary instruction by next week and let the Court know of the reason of absence of any response. Pendency of this petition will not preclude the respondent to respond to the request made on 19.07.2021 and 30.07.2021.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeks unblocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) in Electronic Credit Ledger under CGST and SGST. Challenge to invocation of Rule 86A of CGST Rules, 2017. Relief sought through writ petition for unblocking ITC, allowing E-way bills, filing GSTR-3B without payment, avoiding interest and penalty, and interim relief.

Analysis:
The petitioner approached the Court seeking relief regarding the unblocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to specific figures in CGST and SGST in the Electronic Credit Ledger. The petitioner's grievances were not addressed by the authority, with no show cause notice issued. The petitioner objected strongly to the invocation of Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017, emphasizing the necessity of having available Input Tax credit in the Electronic Credit Ledger for the rule to be invoked. The prayers in the petition include seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to unblock the ITC, allowing the petitioner to raise E-way bills, permitting filing of GSTR-3B without payment due to blocked ITC, and avoiding interest and penalty for late filing. The Court heard the arguments of the petitioner's advocate and ordered the issuance of notice returnable on a specific date.

The Court directed the learned AGP to waive service of notice on behalf of the respondent-State. The AGP was instructed to provide necessary instructions by the following week and inform the Court about the absence of any response from the respondent. The pendency of the petition was clarified not to prevent the respondent from responding to the petitioner's requests made on specific dates. The Court's order indicates a procedural step to ensure the respondent's participation and timely response to the petitioner's grievances, emphasizing the importance of addressing the issues raised regarding the unblocking of ITC and related relief sought through the petition. The directive for the respondent to provide reasons for the lack of response and the waiver of notice service demonstrate the Court's intent to facilitate a fair and efficient resolution of the matter.