The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Safan Fasteners v. Assistant Commissioner [W.P. No. 9359/2025 dated April 08, 2025] set aside the order, since no pre-decisional hearing was granted before passing the order and the order did not any contain independent or cogent reasons to believe, except placing reliance upon reports of enforcement authority, which was impermissible in law.
Facts:
Safan Fasteners’ (“the Petitioner”) Electronic Credit Ledger (“ECrL”) was blocked by an Order dated January 13, 2025 (“the Impugned Order”), invoking Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (“the CGST Rules”).
The Petitioner contended that before passing the Impugned Order, pre-decisional hearing was not provided nor did the Impugned Order contain any reason to believe as to why it was necessary to block the ECrL. This act was in contravention to the decision of the Division Bench of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of K-9- Enterprises v. State of Karnataka[W.A. 100425/2023] (“K-9- Enterprises”).
Hence, aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition.
Issue:
Whether an order to block ECrL be passed without granting pre-decisional hearing?
Held:
The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 9359/2025 held as under:
- Relied on, the K-9- Enterprises, wherein it was held as follows:
-
- A plain reading of Rule 86A of the CGST Rules will indicate that there is absolutely no express provision for compliance with principles of natural justice, where pre-decisional hearing is required to be granted to the aggrieved. However, there could arise situations when principles of natural justice can be read into statutory provisions though they are not expressly present in the provisions.
- In M/s Sahara India (Firm), Lucknow v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal (civil) 2783 of 2008 dated April 11, 2008), the Apex Court held that before ordering special audit of the books of the assessee, the assessee was to be heard as that would entail civil consequences.
- A post- decisional hearing is not a substitute for pre-decisional hearing and that pre-decisional hearing is important especially when the Revenue passed the impugned orders which would entail and visit the appellants with serious civil consequences.
- The independent arrival of opinion that there was a reason to believe is not found forthcoming from the order issued blocking the said credit and it is entirely based on the satisfaction of another officer. It is quite possible that the transaction, when entered into in 2017 or 2018 could be genuine and when the officer visits in 2020 or 2021, the business could have been closed and therefore the mere closure of business in 2020 or 2021 cannot be a basis for denying credit availed earlier. All these factors required that the Revenue ought to have carefully considered and verified all aspects before taking such a drastic action of blocking credit under Rule 86A of the CGST Rule which is yet another circumstance that would vitiate the impugned order.
- The Revenue committed a grave and serious infirmity in passing the impugned orders blocking the ECrL of the Appellants by invoking Rule 86A of the CGST Rules.
- Held that, in the view of the dictum of the K-9- Enterprises, in the instant case, since no pre-decisional hearing was provided before passing the Impugned Order, coupled with the fact that the Impugned Order invoked Section 86A of the CGST Act, blocking of the ECrL of the Petitioner does not contain independent or cogent reasons to believe by placing reliance upon reports of enforcement authority which is impermissible in law. Since the same is on borrowed satisfaction as held in K-9- Enterprises, the Impugned Order deserves to be quashed and ECrL shall be unblocked. It is also pertinent to note that the Impugned Order accept stating that the registered supplier “found to be a bill trader and involved in issuance/availment in fake invoices and the business premises is not existing”, no other reasons were forthcoming in the Impugned Order. On this ground also, the Impugned Order was quashed.
Our Comments:
Rule 86A of the CGST Rules governs “Conditions of use of amount available in electronic credit ledger”. Further, it empowers the Commissioner or an authorized officer (not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner) to block the debit ITC from a taxpayer’s ECrL, if there is a reason to believe that the credit has been fraudulently availed or is ineligible. Paragraph 3.4 of the CBEC Circular No. 20/16/05/2021 – GST/1552 dated November 02, 2021 (“the Guidelines”) deals with the remedy available to taxpayers when their ITC is blocked or restricted under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules. Specifically, it provides that if the ECrL is blocked or debited under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, the affected taxpayer has the right to seek a remedy by making a representation or appeal against the blocking or debit action.
In pari materia case, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Travacore Minerals and Transport Company v. State of Karnataka [Writ Petition No. 26693 of 2024 (T-RES) September 30, 2024], quashed the order, where no pre-decisional hearing was provided by respondent-authorities before blocking ECrL and there was no independent or cogent reason to believe except reports of Enforcement authority, impugned blocking order was impermissible in law as same was based on borrowed satisfaction.
CLICK HERE FOR OFFICIAL JUDGMENT COPY
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
