RULE 86A: Understanding the Blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger

In the realm of Goods and Services Tax (GST) in India, the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECrL) serves as a crucial component for taxpayers. It is where the input tax credit (ITC) accumulated by a taxpayer is maintained, allowing for adjustments against the output tax liability. However, the process isn’t without its complexities, especially concerning the blocking of ECrL, as governed by Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017.

Can Electronic Credit Ledger (ECrL) be blocked for more than a year?

The duration for which an ECrL can be blocked has been a subject of debate and legal scrutiny. According to Rule 86A(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, the proper officer has the authority to block the credit ledger of a taxpayer if there are reasons to believe that such credit is ineligible or has been availed fraudulently. But does this blocking have a time limit?

Judgments Providing Clarity

Raghbir Singh Govt. Contractor – Punjab & Haryana High Court

Introduction

The case of M/S Raghbir Singh Govt. Contractor vs Union Of India And Others, heard in the Punjab-Haryana High Court, sheds light on the complexities of GST regulations and their impact on businesses. In this article, we delve into the details of the case, its implications, and the court’s ruling.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s. Raghbir Singh Govt. Contractor, challenged an amendment to Rule 61 of the Central GST Rules, 2017, with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017. The petitioner sought the declaration of this amendment as ultra vires to Section 39 of the Central GST Act, 2017. Additionally, the petitioner requested a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to unblock a credit amounting to Rs. 95,50,660, as it did not satisfy the conditions of Rule 86A.

Issue

The primary issue at hand was the validity of the amendment to Rule 61 and the blocking of the petitioner’s credit under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017.

Held

The court, presided over by Hon’ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra, examined the case thoroughly. The petitioner highlighted difficulties faced due to delayed bill clearances by the Irrigation Department, leading to challenges in determining output liability. Despite filing returns with correct details and claiming input tax credit, the petitioner’s credit ledger of Rs. 95,50,660 was blocked by the respondent.

Upon review, the court referred to guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. These guidelines stipulate that the restriction imposed under Rule 86A ceases to have effect after one year from the date of imposition. Since the petitioner’s credit ledger had been blocked for over three years, the court directed the respondents to unblock the credit ledger.

While disposing of the case and directing the unblocking of the credit ledger, the court kept the challenge to the vires of Rule 61 and certain notifications open for further consideration.

 Barmecha Texfab Pvt. Ltd. – Gujarat High Court

Introduction

In the legal landscape of India, the Gujarat High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Barmecha Texfab Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner, Govt. Of Gujarat on January 12, 2022. This judgment, authored by J.B. Pardiwala, bears implications for the enforcement of Rule 86A of the CGST/GGST Rules, 2017, particularly regarding the blocking and unblocking of Electronic Credit Ledger.

Facts of the Case

The case revolved around a writ-application filed by Barmecha Texfab Pvt. Ltd., invoking the jurisdiction of the Gujarat High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought a directive to unblock their Electronic Credit Ledger, emphasizing the expiry of the one-year period as prescribed under sub-rule 3 of Rule 86A of the CGST/GGST Rules from the date of the ledger’s initial blocking.

Issue

The core issue addressed by the court was whether the authority, upon the lapse of the statutory one-year period, should unblock the Electronic Credit Ledger in accordance with Rule 86A of the CGST/GGST Rules, 2017.

Held

The court unequivocally held that the Electronic Credit Ledger can be blocked for a duration of one year as stipulated by Rule 86A. Once this period lapses, the ledger should automatically get unblocked. The authority is duty-bound to enable the assessee to access the input credit available in their ledger upon the expiry of the statutory period. In this case, despite the elapse of one year, the authority failed to allow the petitioner to utilize the available credit in their ledger. Notably, the authority further delayed the availability of input credit to the petitioner for over two and a half months beyond the statutory period.

The court emphasized that any future instances of such neglect by the authority would hold them personally liable for any losses incurred by the assessee during the intervening period.

With this ruling, the writ-application was disposed of, bringing clarity to the application of Rule 86A in similar cases.

 Advent India PE Advisors Pvt. Ltd. – Gujarat High Court

Introduction

In a recent judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court on December 13, 2021, in the case of Advent India PE Advisors Private Limited vs Union of India and Ors., the court addressed the contentious issue surrounding the blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The court’s ruling sheds light on the statutory provisions and the obligation of tax authorities concerning the duration of ITC blockage and its implications for taxpayers.

Facts of the Case

Advent India PE Advisors Private Limited filed a writ petition seeking relief from the Bombay High Court. The petitioner contended that their input tax credit amounting to INR 1.17 Cr was blocked in its electronic credit ledger. The petitioner argued that as per Rule 86A(3) of the CGST Rules, the restriction on ITC imposed under sub-rule (1) should cease to have effect after the expiry of one year from the date of imposition.

Issue

The primary issue before the court was whether the tax authorities were obligated to unblock the input tax credit after one year of its initial imposition under Rule 86A(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017.

Held

The Bombay High Court held that the statutory provision under Rule 86A(3) mandates the immediate unblocking of input tax credit after one year of its imposition. The court emphasized that the restriction on ITC cannot be extended beyond the prescribed duration of one year. Furthermore, the court criticized the authorities for failing to comply with the statutory mandate and for unlawfully withholding the unblocking of ITC.

The court noted that the respondents’ argument regarding the awaited reply from the petitioner as a justification for not lifting the restriction was illegal and lacked merit. It underscored that if the authorities had concerns regarding the petitioner’s cooperation, they should have followed the due process of law rather than prolonging the restriction on ITC.

Referring to the decision in the case of M/s. Aegis Polymers vs. Union of India and Ors., the court disposed of the writ petition, ordering the immediate unblocking of the petitioner’s input tax credit. However, the court declined the petitioner’s request for interest payment during the period of restriction.

Best Crop Science LLP – Allahabad High Court

Introduction

In the realm of Goods and Services Tax (GST) law, the recent case of Best Crop Science Llp vs. State Of U.P., adjudicated by the Allahabad High Court, has brought significant attention to the interpretation and application of Rule 86A. This rule, which pertains to the blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC), has been a subject of contention, with taxpayers and authorities grappling over its implications. Let’s delve deeper into the facts of the case and understand the court’s ruling on this matter.

Facts of the Case

Best Crop Science Llp, the petitioner, filed a writ petition challenging the validity of Rule 86A of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. Additionally, the petitioner contested the direction issued by the revenue authority, which blocked the petitioner’s Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to ₹ 2,67,16,352/- in the Electronic Credit Ledger.

Issue

The primary issue before the court was the validity of Rule 86A and the legality of the direction to block the petitioner’s ITC. The court was tasked with interpreting the relevant provisions of the GST law and determining the duration and scope of ITC blockage under Rule 86A.

Held

Upon hearing arguments from both parties, the court noted that the petitioner no longer intended to challenge the validity of Rule 86A. Consequently, the challenge to the rule’s validity was declined. Regarding the direction to block ITC, the court observed that as per sub-rule (3) of Rule 86A, the lifespan of such a direction is limited to one year from its issuance. Since no subsequent order was provided to extend the blockage beyond the prescribed duration, the court ruled that the order automatically ceased on its own on July 9, 2021.

S.P. Metals – Karnataka High Court

Introduction

In a recent landmark judgment, the Karnataka High Court addressed the issue of Input Tax Credit (ITC) blocking by the Revenue Department beyond the stipulated period. The case of S.P. Metals vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax sheds light on the interpretation of Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, concerning the duration of ITC blockage under GST law.

Facts of the Case

The Revenue Department issued an order blocking the Input Tax Credit of S.P Metals on May 11, 2022. Despite the petitioner’s representation dated July 06, 2023, urging the unblocking of ITC, the department persisted in maintaining the blockage. Consequently, S.P. Metals filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court seeking relief from the continued blockage of ITC.

Issue

The central issue before the court was whether the Revenue Department has the authority to block the ITC of a registered person under GST for a period exceeding one year, as per Rule 86A of the CGST Rules.

Held

The Karnataka High Court, in Writ Petition No. 21015 of 2023, unequivocally held that the Revenue Department cannot legally block ITC for more than one year. Noting that the stipulated one-year period elapsed on May 11, 2023, the court deemed the continued blockage beyond this date as illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition and directed the immediate unblocking of ITC for S.P. Metals as per their Electronic Credit Ledger.

 Tvl. New Royal Traders – Madras High Court

Facts of the Case

Tvl. J.M. Traders approached the Madras High Court seeking relief after the Deputy Commissioner (ST) blocked their ITC ledger through a text message on 11.12.2023, without furnishing any written reasons. The petitioner contended that this action violated Rule 86A of the TNGST Rules, which mandates the communication of reasons in writing for blocking ITC.

Issue

The central issue before the court was whether the lack of written reasons for blocking ITC by the authorities contravened the procedural requirements under Rule 86A, thereby affecting the petitioner’s rights and interests.

Held

The Madras High Court, after careful consideration, found that the Deputy Commissioner (ST) had indeed failed to provide written reasons for blocking the ITC, which amounted to a breach of the procedural requirements under Rule 86A. Consequently, the court directed the authorities to take necessary steps to remove the block on the ITC in the electronic credit ledger of Tvl. J.M. Traders. However, the court allowed the authorities to initiate fresh action under Rule 86A, provided they comply with the procedural safeguards, including the communication of reasons in writing.

Parity Infotech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. – Delhi High Court

Introduction

The recent judgment by the Delhi High Court in the case of M/S Parity Infotech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors. sheds light on the legality of blocking Input Tax Credit (ITC) solely based on directions from the Central Tax Department. The court’s decision has significant implications for taxpayers and tax authorities regarding the procedural requirements under the GST regime.

Facts of the Case

In this case, the Delhi State GST Officers blocked ITC amounting to Rs. 2037.31 crores for 6414 registered taxpayers based on directions from the Central Tax Department. However, the court observed that there was no material available to conclude that the taxpayers had wrongly availed or utilized the ITC by fraud, wilful-misstatement, or suppression of facts to evade tax. The Instructions dated 8-3-2022 of the Delhi State Department of Trade & Taxes were also called into question for their implications on procedural fairness.

Issue

The central issue before the court was whether the blocking of ITC solely on the directions of the Central Tax Department, without proper assessment and communication of reasons, violated the legal principles under the GST laws.

Held

The Delhi High Court, after careful consideration, held that the blocking of ITC solely on the directions of the Central Tax Department was invalid. The court emphasized that a show cause notice can only be issued if the proper officer believes that ITC has been wrongly availed or utilized due to fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The impugned instructions were deemed contrary to law as they suggested the issuance of show cause notices and creation of demands without proper assessment. Consequently, the court directed the authorities to restore the blocked ITC and set aside the show cause notice and order.

 Analysis of the Judgments

These judgments collectively provide clarity on the duration for which an Electronic Credit Ledger can be blocked under Rule 86A. They underscore that the authority to block ITC is not indefinite and must adhere to the stipulated time frame. Additionally, they emphasize the importance of compliance and timely resolution of discrepancies to prevent prolonged blocking of credit.