Court Orders Prompt Resolution of Petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger Dispute

The Court directed respondent Nos. 2 and 4 to decide the pending representation of the petitioner regarding the blocked electronic credit ledger by a specified date, emphasizing the need for prompt action in accordance with the relevant rules. The petitioner was allowed to seek damages from the respondents for the prolonged blocking of the ledger, with the Court refraining from expressing any opinion on the potential damages claim but providing the petitioner the opportunity to pursue this remedy.

---

---

Issues:
1. Petitioner's electronic credit ledger blocked beyond one year.
2. Prayer for writ of certiorari/mandamus to unblock ledger.
3. Delay in deciding representation for unlocking ledger.
4. Disposal of petition and remedy for claiming damages.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The petitioner's electronic credit ledger has been blocked since 17/01/2020, exceeding the one-year limit as per Rule 86-A(3) of the C.G.S.T. Rules, 2017, which prohibits such prolonged blocking. The petitioner remains aggrieved by the continued blockage of the ledger.

Issue 2: The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari/mandamus or any appropriate writ/order/direction against the Respondent for unblocking the electronic credit ledger beyond the stipulated one-year period. The Court permitted the petitioner to amend the petition and add a prayer clause for relief in this regard.

Issue 3: Despite the petitioner's representation dated 15/02/2021 for unlocking the ledger, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had not entered an affidavit in reply. The Court directed respondent Nos. 2 and 4 to decide the pending representation of the petitioner on or before 15/09/2021 in accordance with Rule 86-A(3) of the C.G.S.T. Rules, 2017, emphasizing the need for expeditious action.

Issue 4: The petition was disposed of with a direction to decide the pending representation within a specified timeline. The Court left it open for the petitioner to seek damages from respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for the illegal blocking of the electronic credit ledger beyond one year. The Court refrained from expressing any view on the merits of the potential damages claim, providing the petitioner with the opportunity to pursue this remedy.

---