Vijander Kr. Goel vs. Asst. Com. CGST & Cen. Tax, Bbd Bag-1, Div. Kol. & Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Vijander Kumar Goel, filed a writ petition challenging an order that blocked his electronic credit ledger. The petitioner contended that the blocking period should be limited to one year, as stipulated by sub-rule (3) of Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The petitioner argued that since one year had already passed since the blocking, the ledger should be unblocked. The respondent, Assistant Commissioner CGST & Central Tax, was asked to provide instructions on whether any extension order had been issued. The respondent's counsel, on instructions, confirmed that no further order of extension had been passed.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order blocking the petitioner's electronic credit ledger had lost its force and could no longer be continued. This decision was based on the provision of sub-rule (3) of Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which limits the blocking period to one year. The Court reasoned that since the respondent confirmed no further extension order was passed, and the statutory period of one year had expired, the blocking was no longer legally tenable. The legal consequence of the blocking order losing its force would follow automatically. The Court directed that the writ petition and connected applications be disposed of with this observation and direction.
Key Issues
1. Whether the blocking of the petitioner's electronic credit ledger, pursuant to sub-rule (3) of Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, has lost its force after the expiry of one year from the date of the blocking order? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that sub-rule (3) of Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017, prescribes a maximum validity period of one year for blocking an electronic credit ledger. Since this period had expired, the blocking order was no longer effective, and the ledger should be automatically unblocked. The petitioner relied on the plain language of the rule. Revenue's argument: The revenue did not present any argument against the petitioner's contention. When asked for instructions, they confirmed that no further order of extension had been passed.
Sections Cited
Rule 86A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
11-03-2022 Item No.4 Subrata IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Juri iction Appellate Side WPA No.4006 of 2020 Vijander Kumar Goel -vs- Assistant Commissioner CGST & Central Tax, BBD Bag-I Division, Kolkata & Ors. with CAN No.1 of 2021 and CAN No.2 of 2022 Ms. Sweta Mukherjee …for the petitioner Ms. Rajashree V. Kundalia Ms. Ekta Sinha …for CGST Heard both parties. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order of blocking electronic credit ledger of the petitioner by contending that period of validity of such blocking is one year only as per sub-rule (3) of rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that one year has already expired from the date of blocking of the electronic credit ledger, and that in view of the aforesaid provision, the respondents concerned are not unblocking the same, in spite of validity of such blocking has expired and lost its force after a year, In this regard Ms Kundalia, learned advocate appearing for the respondents, was asked to take instructions from the respondents concerned as to whether any further order of extension of the blocking in question has been passed to which she submits, on instructions, that no such further order of extension has been passed.
2 Considering the submission of the parties and the facts as appear from record, this writ petition is disposed of by declaring that the aforesaid impugned order of blocking of the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner has lost its force and cannot be continued now as per sub-rule (3) of rule 86A of the 2017 Rules and the legal consequence will follow automatically. With the aforesaid observation and direction, WPA No.4006 of 2020 and the connected applications – CAN No.1 of 2021 and CAN No. 2 of 2022 – are disposed of. [Md. Nizamuddin, J]
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.