Court orders unblocking of Electronic Credit Ledger post Rule 86A lapse, warns of personal liability

The Court granted the writ-application, directing the unblocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger in accordance with Rule 86A of the CGST/GGST Rules after the statutory one-year period had lapsed. It emphasized the authority's obligation to allow the assessee to utilize input credit post the expiration unless a fresh order was issued. The Court highlighted the authority's accountability for delays in such matters and warned of personal liability in future cases. It stressed prompt compliance with statutory provisions to prevent financial harm to taxpayers.

---

---

Issues:
1. Invocation of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for direction to unblock Electronic Credit Ledger.
2. Interpretation of sub-rule 3 of Rule 86A of the CGST/GGST Rules regarding the blocking and unblocking of Electronic Credit Ledger.
3. Failure of authority to unblock Electronic Credit Ledger after the statutory period of one year had elapsed.
4. Consideration of representation filed by the writ-applicant in the matter.
5. Accountability of the authority for not permitting the writ-applicant to avail input credit after the statutory period ended.

Analysis:
The writ-applicant sought direction under Article 226 to unblock the Electronic Credit Ledger after the expiry of one year from the order of blocking, as per sub-rule 3 of Rule 86A of the CGST/GGST Rules. The Court had issued notice for final disposal, emphasizing the petitioner's prayer to unblock the ledger. During the hearing, the AGP for the respondent authorities acknowledged that the one-year period had indeed elapsed as per the rules. The Court highlighted that the authority was obligated to allow the assessee to utilize the available input credit once the one-year period expired, unless a fresh order was issued. Despite the statutory period ending, the authority had not permitted the writ-applicant to access the credit, even after a representation was submitted.

Furthermore, the Court noted that there was a delay of over two and a half months in allowing the writ-applicant to utilize the input credit after the statutory period had lapsed. The judgment emphasized that in similar future cases, the concerned authority would be personally liable for any losses suffered by the assessee during such delays. The Court disposed of the writ-application, making it clear that authorities must comply with the statutory provisions regarding the blocking and unblocking of Electronic Credit Ledger promptly and without unnecessary delays to avoid causing financial harm to the taxpayers.

---