Electronic credit ledger blocking valid despite earlier search by different authorities under Rule 86A GST

HC dismissed petition challenging Form ASMT-10 notice blocking electronic credit ledger. Court held State Authorities acted within jurisdiction in blocking ITC worth Rs. 13.10 crores despite Central Authorities conducting earlier search, as cross empowerment provisions were premature to determine. Negative blocking under Rule 86A GST Rules was valid regardless of actual credit availability in ECL at time of blocking order. Court ruled availability of ITC in electronic credit ledger immaterial for blocking orders equivalent to wrongful credit availment. Separate DRC proceedings by Central Authorities did not determine entire ASMT-10 issue.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the State Authorities are empowered to issue Form GST ASMT-10 dated 26.09.2024, subsequent to the search conducted by the Central Authorities on 13.03.2024Rs.
2. Whether the blocking of ITC by virtue of the intimation dated 24.06.2024, 09.09.2024, and 10.09.2024 is in accordance with the provisions of Rule 86A of the GST Rules, 2017Rs.
3. Whether the issuance of Form GST DRC-01A pertaining to a sum of Rs. 71,798/- and remitting of the said amount by virtue of Form GST DRC03 and dropping of proceedings would amount to determination of the entire issue in Form GST ASMT-10Rs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue No. 1: Empowerment of State Authorities to Issue Form GST ASMT-10

The court examined whether the State Authorities were empowered to issue Form GST ASMT-10 on 26.09.2024, following a search by the Central Authorities on 13.03.2024. The Central Authorities conducted a search and recorded a statement on 14.03.2024, identifying wrongful ITC availment of Rs. 6.33 Crores. The State Authorities later issued Form GST ASMT-10 for Rs. 13.10 Crores. Although the issues raised by both authorities were similar, the amounts and periods differed. The court concluded that the State Authorities had the power to issue Form ASMT-10 for the difference in amount and period, as no notice for Rs. 13.10 Crores had been issued by the Central Authorities at the time of the State's action. Thus, the State Authorities acted within their jurisdiction, and the concept of cross-empowerment did not apply.

Issue No. 2: Blocking of ITC under Rule 86A of GST Rules, 2017

The court analyzed whether the blocking of ITC by the State Authorities was in accordance with Rule 86A of the GST Rules, 2017. The petitioner argued that the blocking orders were issued without any ITC available in the ECL, which was contrary to Rule 86A. The court examined Rule 86A, which allows blocking if the Commissioner has reasons to believe that ITC has been fraudulently availed. The court noted that the rule permits blocking not only for available ITC but also for equivalent amounts already utilized. The court disagreed with the interpretations by the Gujarat and Delhi High Courts, which focused solely on the first part of Rule 86A, and concluded that negative blocking is permissible under Rule 86A. The State Authorities were justified in blocking ITC to the extent of wrongful availment, even if the ITC was utilized at the time of blocking.

Issue No. 3: Determination of the Entire Issue in Form GST ASMT-10

Regarding the issuance of Form GST DRC-01A for Rs. 71,798/- and its impact on the determination of the entire issue in Form GST ASMT-10, the court observed that the DRC-01A pertained only to a specific amount, while the ASMT-10 covered a larger sum of Rs. 13.10 Crores. The State Authorities were yet to initiate proceedings for the remaining issues. The court noted that the Central Authorities issued Form GST DRC-01A on 08.10.2024, and it was for the State Authorities to determine if all issues in ASMT-10 were covered by the Central Authorities' actions. The petitioner was advised to file a reply, and the State Authorities were to consider it before deciding on the continuation of proceedings.

Conclusion:

The court found no merit in the petitioner's submissions on all three issues and dismissed the writ petition. The court held that the State Authorities acted within their jurisdiction, the blocking of ITC was permissible under Rule 86A, and the proceedings related to ASMT-10 were not determined solely by the issuance of DRC-01A for a smaller amount. The court emphasized the interpretation of Rule 86A in its entirety to uphold the legislative intent and protect revenue interests.

---