Rule 86A ledger blocking challenged for lack of authority and alleged inconsistency with pending appeal and deposit protection.

Blocking of the electronic credit ledger under Rule 86A was challenged as lacking authority because the Assistant Commissioner was said to exceed the monetary limits fixed by departmental circular, and because the blocking was alleged to be inconsistent with a pending appeal and the effect of deposit of 10% of the disputed demand. The court recorded a prima facie view that the blocking may have been without authority and noted the jurisdictional objection. It directed filing of counter affidavits within three days and required personal presence and explanation in default, with the matter listed for further hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the blocking of the electronic credit ledger under Rule 86A by the Assistant Commissioner was justified despite the pendency of appeal against the demand order and deposit of the disputed tax, and whether the officer had the requisite jurisdiction for such action.

Analysis: The order records a prima facie view that the impugned blocking of the electronic credit ledger was without authority, having been passed by an officer said to be beyond the monetary limits prescribed in the departmental circular. It also notices the contention that the blocking was inconsistent with the effect of the appeal and the statutory stay arising from deposit of 10% of the disputed demand.

Outcome: Counter affidavits were directed to be filed within three days, personal presence and explanation were called for in default, and the matter was listed for further hearing.

---