2025 (4) TMI 1013 - HC - GST

Challenge to DRC-01 under Rules 100(2), 142(1)(a) CGST Act Premature; Authorities Must Hear ITC Blocking Grievance

HC held that the challenge to the SCN in Form DRC-01 under Rule 100(2) and 142(1)(a) of the CGST Act was premature, as the petitioner had already filed a ... Challenge to SCN passed by the first respondent under Rule 100(2) and 142(1) (a) of CGST Act - consequential direction to the respondents to Unblock the negatively blocked Input Tax Credit - HELD THAT:- It appears that challenge to the show cause notices in Form DRC-01 dated 18.12.2024 is premature. In the present case, the petitioner had submitted his reply to the said show cause notices issued by the first respondent along with documentary evidence. It is also pointed out that the reason for filing the present Writ Petitions is to get immediate relief to unblock the input tax credit. The learned counsel for the respondents contented that, since the petitioner have dealt with fake invoices, the respondent authority have blocked the Input Tax Credit. The respondents are directed to consider the reply filed by the petitioner along with the documentary evidence to the show cause notices dated 18.02.2025 and issue a 7 days clear notice by fixing the date for personal hearing to the petitioner - Peition disposed off. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether challenge to show cause notices issued under Rule 100(2) and Rule 142(1)(a) of the CGST Act seeking to justify blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) on the ground of alleged fake invoices/non-existent suppliers is maintainable in writ proceedings prior to adjudication by the assessing authority. 2. Whether the revenue authority is obliged to afford a personal hearing and consider the taxpayer's written reply and documentary evidence before passing orders consequential to the show cause notices and blocking of ITC. 3. Whether the competent authority, upon concluding that the transactions do not pertain to fake invoices, is required to unblock negatively blocked ITC and within what procedural timeframe such exercise should be completed. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Maintainability of pre-adjudication challenge to show cause notices blocking ITC Legal framework: The procedural regime under the CGST Act and allied rules (Rule 100(2), Rule 142(1)(a)) empowers issuance of show cause notices and administrative measures including blocking of ITC where fake invoices or non-existent suppliers are alleged. Precedent Treatment: No judicial precedents were relied upon or considered by the Court in the judgment. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that factual disputes concerning genuineness of invoices and existence of supplies are matters for adjudication by the statutory authority. A preemptive adjudication by writ court on such factual controversies would be premature. The petitioner had already filed a reply with documentary evidence; therefore, the appropriate course is to require the authority to consider that material and adjudicate rather than permit immediate judicial intervention to quash the show cause notices prior to adjudicatory process. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The Court's statement that a challenge to show cause notices impugning ITC on factual grounds is premature in writ jurisdiction where adjudication has not been completed is part of the operative reasoning. Conclusion: A writ challenge to the show cause notices and attendant blocking of ITC was held to be premature; the Court will not decide the factual merits of allegations of fake invoices in writ proceedings prior to adjudication by the competent authority. Issue 2: Requirement to afford personal hearing and consider reply/documents before passing orders affecting ITC Legal framework: Principles of natural justice and statutory procedure under the CGST regime require that a taxpayer be given an opportunity of hearing and that replies and material filed with response to notices be considered before taking consequential action such as sustaining blocking or recovery of ITC. Precedent Treatment: No specific authorities cited; the direction arises from the Court's application of natural justice and statutory procedural norms. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the petitioner had submitted a reply with documentary evidence to the show cause notices. In the absence of evidence that the authority had afforded a personal hearing or considered the reply, the Court directed the respondents to issue a clear seven-day notice fixing a date for personal hearing and to consider the reply and supporting documents. The Court emphasized that such procedural compliance is necessary before adverse action is sustained. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The directive to afford an opportunity of personal hearing by issuing a clear notice and to consider the taxpayer's reply and documentary evidence before passing orders is an operative direction grounded in procedural fairness. Conclusion: The authority must afford a personal hearing (with seven days' clear notice) and consider the taxpayer's reply and documentary evidence before passing any order adverse to ITC; failure to do so would vitiate subsequent action. Issue 3: Obligation to unblock ITC if adjudication does not sustain fake-invoice allegations and timeline for completion Legal framework: The CGST scheme permits blocking/unblocking of ITC based on adjudication; if the authority concludes that ITC was wrongly blocked (i.e., transactions are not fake invoices), the administrative act of unblocking follows. Precedent Treatment: No precedential authorities discussed; the Court's direction is based on statutory scheme and the parties' submissions. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court directed that if, after personal hearing and consideration of the reply/evidence, the authority concludes that the petitioner's case does not pertain to fake invoices, it shall consider the petitioner's request for unblocking of ITC. The Court imposed a temporal limitation - completion of the entire exercise within five weeks from receipt of the order - to prevent undue delay and to address the petitioner's grievance of business disruption caused by blocked credits. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The binding direction that the authority must consider unblocking ITC where fake-invoice allegations are not sustained and complete the process within five weeks is a dispositive order of the Court. Conclusion: If adjudication finds no nexus to fake invoices, the authority is directed to consider and, as appropriate, unblock the ITC; the entire procedural exercise (notice, hearing, consideration and decision) must be completed within five weeks from service of the Court's order. Cross-References and Interaction Between Issues 1. Issue 1 and Issue 2 are interlinked: the prematurity of writ relief (Issue 1) is predicated on the need for the authority to first comply with procedural requirements (Issue 2) and adjudicate factual questions. 2. Issue 3 flows from the conclusion of Issue 2: only upon fair consideration and adjudication (after personal hearing) can the authority lawfully decide to unblock ITC; the Court prescribes a specified timeframe to ensure remedying of business prejudice caused by negative blocking.