9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 1167 - HC - GSTConstitutional Validity of Rule 86A of the CGST/SGST Rules, 2017 - violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India - requirement of reasonable cause before action is taken under the Rule by an authorized officer - HELD THAT - In the instant case, since no pre-decisional hearing was provided/granted by the respondents before passing the impugned order, coupled with the fact that the impugned order invoking Section 86A of the CGST Rules by blocking of the Electronic credit ledger of the petitioner does not contain independent or cogent reasons to believe except by placing reliance upon the reports of Enforcement authority which is impermissible in law, since the same is on borrowed satisfaction as held by the Hon ble Division Bench of this Court, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. Impugned order dated 23.01.2020 at Annexure-A is hereby quashed - the concerned respondents are directed to unblock the Electronic credit ledger of the petitioner immediately upon the receipt of copy of this order , so as to enable the petitioner to file returns forthwith - petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Rule 86A of the CGST/SGST Rules, 2017. 2. Violation of principles of natural justice under Rule 86A. 3. Requirement of "reasons to believe" for blocking the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL). 4. The validity of the impugned order blocking the petitioner's ECL. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutionality of Rule 86A of the CGST/SGST Rules, 2017: The petitioner challenged Rule 86A of the CGST/SGST Rules, 2017, arguing that it is unreasonable, discriminatory, and arbitrary, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court examined the rule's application and its alignment with constitutional principles. The petitioner contended that the rule lacks clarity and fairness, leading to arbitrary blocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) without sufficient grounds or procedural safeguards. 2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice under Rule 86A: The petitioner argued that Rule 86A does not incorporate principles of natural justice, violating Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The court considered whether the rule provides an opportunity for affected parties to be heard before their ECL is blocked. It was highlighted that the absence of a pre-decisional hearing or opportunity to present a reasonable cause before the action is taken under Rule 86A is a significant procedural flaw. 3. Requirement of "Reasons to Believe" for Blocking the ECL: The court analyzed the necessity for the revenue authorities to have "reasons to believe" that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) was fraudulently availed or ineligible before blocking the ECL under Rule 86A. The judgment emphasized that the reasons must be based on tangible evidence and not merely on borrowed satisfaction from other officers or reports. The court referred to the CBEC Circular dated 02.11.2021, which outlines the grounds for forming such a belief, including non-existent suppliers or unpaid taxes. 4. The Validity of the Impugned Order Blocking the Petitioner's ECL: The impugned order dated 23.01.2020 blocking the petitioner's ECL was scrutinized for compliance with the prerequisites of Rule 86A. The court found that the order lacked independent and cogent reasons to believe, relying instead on reports from the Enforcement authority, which is impermissible. The judgment cited the Division Bench's decision in K-9-Enterprises Vs. State of Karnataka, which held that orders blocking ECL must be based on independent satisfaction and not on borrowed conclusions. Conclusion: The court concluded that the impugned order was arbitrary and lacked the necessary procedural safeguards, including a pre-decisional hearing and independent reasons to believe. Consequently, the order was quashed, and the respondents were directed to unblock the petitioner's ECL immediately. The court allowed the respondents the liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law, ensuring compliance with the principles outlined in the Division Bench judgment.
|
