S.S. Enterprise VS State Tax Officer

In this lengthy legal narrative, an intra-court appeal has been filed by the petitioners in response to an order dated March 21, 2022, issued in the context of a specific case identified as WPA 4360 of 2022. The details and specifics of the case, as well as the grounds for the appeal, are likely to be delineated in the subsequent sections of the document. It’s indicative of a legal process unfolding, likely within a judicial system where appeals and challenges to orders are common. The language used suggests a formal legal context, with precise references to dates, case numbers, and procedural terminology. The narrative might delve into the arguments presented by both parties, the legal precedents invoked, and any pertinent evidence or documentation submitted in support of the appeal. The outcome of this appeal, and its potential implications for the parties involved, would likely be significant, reflecting the importance of the underlying legal issues at stake.

This intra-court appeal arises from a dispute over an order dated March 21, 2022, issued in WPA 4360 of 2022. The appellants contest this order on the basis that the interim relief requested in the writ petition was not provided. The impugned order, which is being challenged, pertains to the respondent authority’s decision to block the electronic credit ledger account of the appellant dealer.

The learned Single Judge, who initially heard the case, determined that the appellant had not sufficiently demonstrated a prima facie case warranting interim relief before the filing of affidavits. Consequently, while the prayer for interim relief was not outrightly rejected, the court directed the respondents to file an affidavit-in-opposition. Additionally, the appellants were granted the liberty to file a reply to these affidavits.

In essence, the appellants are appealing against the decision not to grant interim relief and are contesting the basis on which this decision was made. The court’s directive to file affidavits suggests that further consideration of the matter is pending, with both parties having the opportunity to present their respective arguments before a final decision is reached.

This intra-court appeal arises from a writ petition challenging an order dated March 21, 2022, issued in WPA 4360 of 2022. The appellants contest the denial of an interim order requested in the writ petition. The impugned order, issued by the respondent authority, blocked the electronic credit ledger account of the appellant dealer.

The learned Single Judge declined to grant interim relief, reasoning that the appellant had not demonstrated a prima facie case before filing affidavits. However, the court directed the respondents to file an affidavit-in-opposition and allowed the appellants to file a reply.

Counsel for the appellants argued vigorously that the appellants, engaged in the scrap paper business for three decades, are honest taxpayers. They asserted that the blocking of their electronic credit ledger account has severely impacted their business operations and caused significant prejudice. When questioned by the court about approaching the State Tax Officer, counsel stated that the appellants had indeed submitted a representation on February 21, 2022, requesting the withdrawal of the negative blocking and the credit of Rs. 1,27,54,701.00 debited on February 16, 2022. However, this request allegedly went unaddressed.

Counsel for the appellants cited a decision of the Hon’ble High Court at Gujarat in support of their arguments.

This intra court appeal arises from an order dated 21.03.2022 in WPA 4360 of 2022, where the appellants challenge the refusal of an interim order sought in a writ petition. The impugned order blocked the electronic credit ledger account of the appellant dealer.

The Single Judge declined the interim order, deeming that the appellant hadn’t established a prima facie case before filing affidavits. However, the court directed the respondents to file an affidavit-in-opposition and granted liberty to file a reply.

The appellant’s counsel argued that the appellant, engaged in scrap paper dealing for 30 years, is a lawful taxpayer. The blocking of their electronic credit ledger adversely affected their business, causing significant prejudice. When questioned if they approached the State Tax Officer, it was revealed they submitted a representation on 21.02.2022, requesting withdrawal of the ledger block and the restoration of debited credit amounting to Rs. 1,27,54,701.00. Allegedly, this request was overlooked.

The appellant’s counsel cited a Gujarat High Court decision from 03.02.2022 (R/Special Civil Application No. 18059 of 2021, Samay Alloys India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat), arguing that to block the electronic credit register, the input tax credit must be available in the ledger and fraudulently claimed.

This intra court appeal arises from an order dated 21.03.2022 issued in WPA 4360 of 2022. The appellants challenge this order, which blocked their electronic credit ledger account, as the interim relief they sought in the writ petition was not granted. The learned Single Judge determined that the appellants did not establish a prima facie case for interim relief prior to filing affidavits. However, the Judge directed the respondents to file an affidavit-in-opposition and granted liberty to file a reply.

The counsel for the appellants argued vehemently that the appellants, who have been in the scrap paper business for 30 years and are honest taxpayers, have suffered significant prejudice due to the blocking of their electronic credit ledger account. They claimed to have submitted a representation to the Assistant Commissioner of State Sales Tax on 21.02.2022, requesting withdrawal of the blocking and restoration of debited credit. However, this representation allegedly remained unaddressed.

The appellants’ counsel relied on a decision of the Gujarat High Court dated 03.02.2022 (Samay Alloys India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat), asserting that blocking electronic credit registers should only occur when fraudulently claimed input tax credits are available. The representation submitted by the appellants remains pending.

The court declined to interfere with the Single Judge’s order but directed the concerned respondent to address the representation of 21.02.2022 in light of legal principles. They emphasized the importance of allowing registered dealers to conduct business, highlighting that tax recovery is dependent on it. However, they cautioned against allowing errant dealers to evade consequences, urging stringent action if illegal arrangements regarding input tax credits are found. The court advised the respondents to consider the timing of the credit blockage to avoid prejudicing the dealer until final orders are passed. They stressed the need for merit-based decisions in this regard.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: