Vijay Jaiswal vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Shyambazar, West Bengal Goods And Service Tax And Ors

Held

The Court noted that the appellant conceded to withdraw the prayer challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. Therefore, the issue regarding the vires of Rule 86A and the associated interim relief was no longer pressed. Regarding the blocking of the electronic credit ledger, the Court found that the appellant was not aware of the reasons behind the authority's decision. Consequently, the Court directed the appropriate authority to intimate the appellant, within ten days of receiving the judgment, the reasons for blocking the electronic credit ledger and the identity of the authority that passed the order. Upon receiving these reasons, the appellant would have seven days to file objections. Following this, the concerned authority must provide a personal hearing to the appellant or their authorized representative and pass a speaking order on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within two weeks of the hearing's conclusion. This approach was deemed to meet the ends of justice and protect the revenue's interests.

Facts

The appellant, Vijay Jaiswal, filed a writ petition challenging the blocking of his electronic credit ledger. The learned Single Bench did not grant interim relief, leading to this intra-Court appeal. The appellant initially sought to challenge the constitutional validity of Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. However, during the hearing, the appellant's counsel conceded to withdraw the prayer challenging the vires of Rule 86A. The primary remaining request was for the withdrawal of the blocked electronic credit ledger and restoration of input tax credit. The appellant argued that they were unaware of the reasons for the blocking and sought an opportunity to be heard.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellant can challenge the constitutional validity of Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, and seek interim relief pending such challenge? - Petitioner's argument: The appellant initially sought to challenge the vires of Rule 86A. - Revenue's argument: Not recorded. 2. Whether the appellant is entitled to the withdrawal of the blocking of the electronic credit ledger and restoration of input tax credit without knowing the reasons for the blocking? - Petitioner's argument: The appellant requested the withdrawal of the blocking and restoration of credit, but sought to be informed of the reasons for the blocking and be heard before any final decision. - Revenue's argument: Not recorded.