Vijay Jaiswal VS Assistant Commissioner

This intra-court appeal arises from a writ petition filed by the appellant against an order dated May 11, 2022, in W.P.A. No. 7690 of 2022. The order, issued by a learned Single Bench, denied the petitioner’s request for interim relief. Dissatisfied with this decision, the petitioner has brought this appeal before the court.

During the hearing, Ms. Rita Mukherjee and Mr. Abhijat Das represented the appellant, while Mr. T.M. Siddique, along with Mr. Anirban Ray, appeared as learned standing counsel for the State. Additionally, Mr. Bhanja represented the Union of India, and Ms. Rajashree Venket Kundalia represented the CGST authorities.

During the proceedings, Ms. Rita Mukherjee, representing the appellant, initially argued for a considerable duration. However, it was eventually brought to attention that the relief sought in the writ petition challenged the validity of Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. In light of this, it was argued that the request for interim relief might not be applicable pending the consideration of the declaratory relief regarding the constitutionality of Rule 86A. Consequently, the appellant expressed willingness to withdraw the prayer challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 86A. However, the appellant sought to maintain the request to withdraw.

This intra-Court appeal stems from a writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order dated May 11, 2022, in W.P.A. No.7690 of 2022. In this order, the learned Single Bench did not grant interim relief sought by the petitioner. Dissatisfied with this decision, the appellant has brought this appeal before the court.

During the proceedings, arguments were presented by Ms. Rita Mukherjee and Mr. Abhijat Das, representing the appellant, Mr. T.M. Siddique along with Mr. Anirban Ray, representing the State, Mr. Bhanja representing the Union of India, and Ms. Rajashree Venket Kundalia, representing the CGST authorities.

During the hearing, it became apparent that the relief sought in the writ petition pertained to challenging the validity of Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. In light of this, it was argued that there was no basis for granting interim relief while the challenge to the rule’s constitutionality was pending. The appellant expressed willingness to withdraw the challenge to Rule 86A’s validity but requested consideration of the restoration of the input tax credit and the lifting of the electronic credit ledger block. The appellant sought disclosure of the reasons behind blocking the ledger and an opportunity to be heard before any decision was made regarding its restoration.

In essence, the appellant sought reconsideration of the blocking of their electronic credit ledger and restoration of input tax credit, with a request for transparency regarding the reasons for the block and an opportunity to present their case before any decision was made.

This intra-Court appeal arises from a writ petition where the petitioner sought interim relief, which was denied by the Single Bench on May 11, 2022. The appellant, dissatisfied with this decision, appeals against it.

During the hearing, representatives from both sides presented their arguments. Ms. Rita Mukherjee, along with Mr. Abhijat Das, represented the appellant, while Mr. T.M. Siddique, supported by Mr. Anirban Ray, represented the State. Additionally, Mr. Bhanja advocated for the Union of India, and Ms. Rajashree Venket Kundalia represented the CGST authorities.

During the proceedings, it became apparent that the main issue in the writ petition was the challenge to the validity of Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. In response to this, the appellant indicated a willingness to withdraw the challenge to the constitutionality of Rule 86A. However, they requested consideration for the restoration of the input tax credit and the lifting of the block on their electronic credit ledger. They argued that they should be informed of the reasons behind the blocking of the ledger and be given an opportunity to address them.

Considering the submissions, the Court decided to dispose of both the writ petition and the appeal together. The appellant’s concession to withdraw the challenge to Rule 86A was noted, and the request for its declaration as ultra vires was struck off. However, the request to restore the input tax credit and unblock the electronic credit ledger was not granted immediately. The Court reasoned that without knowledge of the reasons behind the ledger block, such a directive could not be given. Instead, the Court proposed an order that would serve the interests of justice while safeguarding revenue interests.

This intra-Court appeal arises from a writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of a learned Single Bench dated 11th May, 2022, which denied interim relief. The appellant challenges Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. During the hearing, it became apparent that the relief sought in the writ petition pertained to challenging the validity of Rule 86A, and thus the request for interim relief did not apply. The appellant expressed willingness to withdraw the challenge to the rule’s validity but requested the restoration of blocked electronic credit ledger and input tax credit, subject to knowing the reasons behind the blocking.

Considering the submissions, the court disposed of both the writ petition and the appeal through a common order. The appellant’s concession regarding the challenge to Rule 86A’s validity was noted, and that prayer was struck off. However, the request to unblock the electronic credit ledger and restore input tax credit couldn’t be granted immediately due to lack of information on the reasons for blocking. To address this, the court ordered the appropriate authority to provide reasons for blocking the electronic credit ledger within ten days, along with information about the authority responsible. The appellant could then file objections within seven days, and a personal hearing would be provided. The authority was directed to pass a speaking order on the matter within two weeks after the conclusion of the hearing. No costs were awarded, and parties could obtain certified copies of the order upon fulfilling legal requirements.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: