2021 (7) TMI 647 - HC - GST

Validity of blocking of the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner - benefit of the input credit could not be availed - sub-rule (3) of Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT - There was some technical error on the part of the petitioner in wrongly submitting the details of the input credit in different forms than the requisite form. Be that at it may, such issues are not dwelled upon, suffice it to observe that the primary concern of the petitioner appears to have been redressed by operation of sub-rule (3) of Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, to the effect that the impugned blockage has ceased to have effect, as already a period of more than one year has passed, after the electronic ledger of the petitioner was blocked on January 28, 2020. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Blocking of electronic credit ledger by respondents.
2. Interpretation of Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017.
3. Show cause notice issued to the petitioner.
4. Technical error in submitting input credit details.

Analysis:

1. Blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger:
The primary issue in this case was the blocking of the petitioner's electronic credit ledger by the respondents, preventing the petitioner from availing the benefit of input credit. The blockage occurred on January 28, 2020. However, it was highlighted that as per sub-rule (3) of Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017, such restrictions cease to have effect after one year from the date of imposition. The counsel for the petitioner acknowledged this legal provision, indicating that the blockage should no longer be in effect.

2. Interpretation of Rule 86A:
The Court examined Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, specifically focusing on sub-rule (3) which governs the conditions of use of the amount available in the electronic credit ledger. By citing this rule, the Court determined that the blockage of the electronic ledger should no longer be valid as more than a year had passed since its imposition. Both counsels agreed on this interpretation, thereby resolving the primary grievance of the petitioner.

3. Show Cause Notice:
It was mentioned that a show cause notice dated October 24, 2019, had been issued to the petitioner, to which no reply had been submitted. Despite this, the Court did not delve into the specifics of this notice, as the main concern of the petitioner regarding the blockage of the electronic ledger had been addressed by the operation of Rule 86A. The show cause notice did not play a significant role in the final decision of the Court.

4. Technical Error in Input Credit Submission:
The Court observed that there was a technical error on the part of the petitioner in submitting the details of input credit in incorrect forms. However, the Court did not focus on this issue, stating that the primary concern of the petitioner had been resolved due to the operation of Rule 86A. The Court disposed of the petition, leaving other contentions of the parties open and not awarding any costs.

In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay disposed of the petition based on the interpretation of Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017, which led to the cessation of the blockage of the petitioner's electronic credit ledger. The Court did not delve into the technical error or the show cause notice, as the primary concern had been addressed by the lapse of the one-year period specified in the rule.