This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:

(i) Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to forthwith unlock the electronic credit ledger, which has been debited by Rs. (-) 1,23,59,000/- (Annexure No.2);

(ii) Declaration holding that negative blocking of credit by respondent no.2 of Rs. 1,23,59,000/- was illegal;

 (iii) Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to pay interest @ 18% for illegally blocking the credit;

The petitioner submits that blocking of input tax credit under Rule 86A of CGST/UPGST Rules, 2017 has resulted in negative blocking, which cannot be done

 The petitioner, the provision of Rule 86-A is not a recovery provision. In fact, it does not allow the revenue to reverse or appropriate any part of the credit existing in the electronic credit ledger of an assessee or to adjust that credit against any outstanding demand or likely demand. It is at most a provision to secure the interest of revenue, to be exercised in the presence of the relevant ‘reasons to believe’, as recorded.

The Rule only enables the authorized officer to not allow debit of an amount equivalent to ‘such credit’. The submission of Shri Mishra that the words ‘such credit’ refers only to any existing amount of positive credit in the electronic credit ledger or that it must be credit arising from the same seller, cannot be accepted as that intent is clearly non-existing in the Rule

The operative portion of sub-rule (1) of Rule 86-A limits the exercise of power (by the authorized officer), to the amount that would be sufficient to cover the input tax that, according to the revenue, had either been fraudulently availed or to which the assessee was not eligible. It is an amount equal to that amount which has to be kept unutilised