Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack

Facts

The Petitioner, Namita Behera, filed a writ petition challenging debit entries made in her electronic credit ledger (ECL) by Opposite Party No. 2, the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, CT & GST, Enforcement Unit, Berhampur. The Petitioner received goods worth Rs. 1,15,18,576.00, including taxable supply of Rs. 97,51,506.00 and IGST of Rs. 17,57,071.00, supported by invoices, e-way bills, and weighing bridge slips. Payment was made to the supplier, who discharged their GST obligations. On January 5, 2026, the Petitioner had a nil balance in integrated tax and positive balances in central and state tax. However, debit entries of Rs. 17,57,071.00 (integrated tax) were made, resulting in a negative balance. Further debit entries of Rs. 6,66,377.00 were made on April 4, 2026. The Petitioner's request on April 14, 2026, to reverse these debit entries and allow utilization of ITC remains pending.

Held

The Court directed the Appropriate Officer to dispose of the representation filed by the Petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of presentation of an authenticated copy of the order. The Court did not explicitly rule on the legality of the debit entries or the interpretation of Rule 86A in relation to negative balances or the requirement for recorded reasons. The primary outcome was an order for expeditious disposal of the Petitioner's pending representation. The Writ Petition was disposed of based on this direction, implying that the Petitioner's grievance would be addressed by the concerned authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the debit entry in the electronic credit ledger under Rule 86A is permissible from the available balance, and if a negative balance in the ECL is permissible for such debit entries? 2. Whether the action of the Opposite Parties in blocking the ITC under Rule 86A is unsustainable and impermissible in the absence of recorded reasons for belief that the ITC was fraudulently availed or ineligible? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that debit entries under Rule 86A should only be permissible from the available balance in the ECL, and a negative balance should not be created. They contended that blocking ITC under Rule 86A requires the authority to record reasons for belief that the ITC was fraudulently availed or ineligible, and such recording was absent in this case. The Petitioner relied on the prayers made in the writ petition seeking withdrawal/reversal of debit entries and allowing utilization of ITC. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Opposite Parties (Revenue).