Basha Enterprises vs. The Deputy Commissioner

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had filed two representations on 09.11.2024 and 07.04.2025 before the 1st respondent. In light of these prior representations, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing the 1st respondent to consider these representations. The Court ordered the 1st respondent to pass orders on the said representations expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the validity of the blocking proceedings or the violation of natural justice. The primary decision was to direct the respondent to address the pending representations.

Facts

The petitioner, Basha Enterprises, is registered under the GST, CGST, and IGST Acts. The 1st respondent, The Deputy Commissioner, issued proceedings on 06.11.2024, blocking the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger, which held a credit balance of Rs. 70,25,000/-. The petitioner contends that these proceedings were initiated without providing an opportunity for hearing, without proper fact-finding, and without assigning adequate reasons. The petitioner had submitted two representations on 09.11.2024 and 07.04.2025 requesting the unblocking of the ledger. The petitioner further argued that the blocked ledger is hindering their business operations and affecting their rights. The High Court considered the existence of these prior representations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings dated 06.11.2024, blocking the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger, were issued in violation of principles of natural justice, specifically by failing to provide an opportunity of hearing and without proper reasoning, thereby contravening relevant provisions of the CGST Act and Rules? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the blocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger was done arbitrarily, without affording any opportunity of hearing or proper justification. They emphasized that this action has severely impacted their ability to conduct business. The petitioner relied on the fact that they had submitted multiple representations seeking redressal. Respondent's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (The Deputy Commissioner and Others).