Deputy Commissioner's ECL blocking order quashed for acting on superior's directions without independent discretion under Rule 86-A

The Bombay HC allowed the petition challenging the blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) under Rule 86-A of CGST Rules, 2017. The court held that while a Deputy Commissioner has jurisdiction to block ECL and such blocking differs from provisional attachment under Section 83 of CGST Act, the impugned order was arbitrary and illegal. The Deputy Commissioner abdicated her authority by acting on directions from superiors rather than independently applying her mind. The court emphasized that Rule 86-A permits blocking only to the extent of fraudulent credit availment and requires independent exercise of discretion. The blocking order was quashed and set aside.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) under Rule 86-A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 amounts to provisional attachment of property under section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017.
2. Whether rule 86-A of Rules, 2017 permits blocking of the ECL, and if yes, to what extent.
3. Whether the order of blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) is arbitrary and illegal.
4. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondents are justified in blocking Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) under rule 86-A of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Blocking of ECL and Provisional Attachment under Section 83:

The court analyzed whether blocking of the ECL under Rule 86-A is akin to provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act. It was determined that the effect of the power exercised under Rule 86-A is to place an embargo on the utilization of the amount of credit or refund of the unutilized amount of credit. This is distinct from the seizure of the credit amount for its consequent appropriation for the realization of tax dues, which occurs in the case of attachment of property. The court concluded that the power under Rule 86-A is distinct from the power under Section 83, and any order passed under Rule 86-A cannot be treated as an order amounting to provisional attachment of property under Section 83 of the CGST Act.

2. Permissibility and Extent of Blocking ECL under Rule 86-A:

The court examined Rule 86-A, which allows the Commissioner or an authorized officer to disallow the debit of an amount equivalent to the credit found to be fraudulently or wrongly availed. The rule does not explicitly mention blocking of the ECL, but such blocking can be inferred from the disallowance of debit. The court clarified that blocking of the ECL must be limited to the amount found to be fraudulently or wrongly availed. Thus, Rule 86-A permits blocking of the ECL only to the extent of the fraudulent or wrong availment of credit.

3. Arbitrariness and Illegality of the Blocking Order:

The court emphasized that Rule 86-A has two prerequisites: the competent authority must have reasons to believe that the credit has been fraudulently availed, and these reasons must be recorded in writing. The impugned order did not meet these requirements as it lacked reasons and did not specify the amount to the extent to which the ECL was blocked. The court found the order to be an instance of arbitrary exercise of power under Rule 86-A and thus illegal. Additionally, the court noted that the order was issued based on directions from a higher authority without independent application of mind by the Deputy Commissioner, further rendering it arbitrary and illegal.

4. Justification for Blocking ECL:

Given that the impugned order was found to be unsustainable in law, the court did not specifically address the justification for blocking the ECL. The necessity for examining the justification would have arisen if the order had been found sustainable on the touchstone of due process but required consideration on merits, which was not the case here.

Conclusion:

The court quashed and set aside the impugned order of blocking the ECL of the petitioner. It allowed the respondents to consider invoking the power under Rule 86-A afresh, in accordance with the law and the observations made in the judgment. The petition was partly allowed, and the court did not find it necessary to issue a direction for framing additional guidelines for the exercise of power under Rule 86-A, as the rule itself contained sufficient safeguards against misuse.

---