Tax Authorities Must Lift ITC Credit Block After One Year, Ensuring Taxpayer Rights and Procedural Fairness Under Rule 86A

HC ruled that blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Rule 86A cannot continue beyond one year, regardless of ongoing investigations. The court directed lifting of ITC restriction imposed on 15th January 2024, emphasizing the statutory limitation of one-year blocking period. The decision does not interfere with departmental adjudication proceedings but ensures the petitioner's right to access ITC ledger after the prescribed timeframe.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:

(a) Whether the blocking of Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 can be continued beyond the period of one year from the date of imposition;

(b) Whether the blocking of ITC of Rs. 3,91,23,722/- by the Deputy Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Gurugram, was lawful and in accordance with the statutory provisions;

(c) The effect of the show cause notice dated 3rd August 2024 and the Order-in-Original dated 12th February 2025 denying ITC and confirming demand and penalties on the Petitioner;

(d) The rights of the Petitioner to challenge the blocking of ITC and the subsequent orders passed by the adjudicating authority;

(e) The interplay between the blocking of ITC under Rule 86A and the adjudicatory process initiated by the department.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a): Whether the blocking of ITC can be continued beyond one year under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 governs the conditions for the use of amounts available in the electronic credit ledger. Sub-rule (3) specifically states: "Such restriction shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of imposing such restriction." This statutory provision imposes a temporal limit on the blocking of ITC.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the blocking of ITC is subject to a maximum period of one year as per the express language of Rule 86A(3). The Court emphasized that this limitation is mandatory and not subject to extension by administrative action. The Court held that once the one-year period expires, the restriction must cease automatically.

Key evidence and findings: The ITC was blocked on 15th January 2024, and the petition was heard in April 2025, which is beyond the one-year period. Despite this, the ITC remained blocked.

Application of law to facts: Applying the statutory provision to the facts, the Court found that the continued blocking of ITC beyond one year was not permissible under the law.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Respondents argued that the blocking was based on allegations of the Petitioner being a non-existing firm, justifying the restriction. However, the Court held that irrespective of the reasons, the statutory limitation on the duration of blocking cannot be overridden.

Conclusion: The Court concluded that the blocking of ITC must be lifted after one year, as mandated by Rule 86A(3), independent of any ongoing investigation or adjudication.

Issue (b): Lawfulness of the blocking of ITC amounting to Rs. 3,91,23,722/- by the Deputy Director, DG GST Intelligence

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The blocking of ITC is a preventive measure under GST laws to curb fraudulent claims or misuse. The Court referred to the earlier decision in Best Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Commissioner, CGST, which laid down principles regarding the legality of blocking ITC.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Petitioner contended that the blocking was contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Court in the Best Crop Science case. The Court acknowledged the Petitioner's submissions but did not delve deeply into the merits of the blocking itself, focusing primarily on the statutory limitation of one year.

Key evidence and findings: The Petitioner's ITC ledger showed a negative balance due to the blocking. The blocking was imposed on 15th January 2024, and the Petitioner challenged the legality of such action.

Application of law to facts: While the Court did not overturn the blocking per se, it emphasized that the blocking could not be maintained beyond one year. The Court implicitly recognized that blocking is permissible but only within the statutory timeframe.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Respondents justified the blocking on grounds of the Petitioner being a non-existent firm, but the Court did not accept this as a basis to extend the blocking period beyond one year.

Conclusion: The Court did not declare the initial blocking unlawful but held that its continuation beyond one year was impermissible.

Issue (c): Effect of show cause notice dated 3rd August 2024 and Order-in-Original dated 12th February 2025 denying ITC and imposing penalties

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The show cause notice and subsequent Order-in-Original are part of the adjudicatory process under GST law, providing the Petitioner an opportunity to contest the denial of ITC and penalties.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the Petitioner had filed a reply denying all allegations and was in the process of filing an appeal against the Order-in-Original. The Court clarified that its decision on lifting the blocking did not interfere with the adjudicatory process or any other action taken by the authorities.

Key evidence and findings: The Order-in-Original dated 12th February 2025 denied ITC of Rs. 29,13,246/- and confirmed a demand of Rs. 55,38,110/- along with penalties. The Petitioner had challenged these orders.

Application of law to facts: The Court maintained a distinction between the temporary blocking of ITC under Rule 86A and the substantive adjudication on entitlement to ITC and demand confirmation. The blocking is a preventive measure, whereas denial and penalties arise from adjudication.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Respondents may have argued that the blocking was justified pending adjudication; however, the Court held that the blocking cannot exceed one year even if adjudication is ongoing.

Conclusion: The Court's order to lift the blocking is without prejudice to the departmental adjudication and appeals filed by the Petitioner.

Issue (d): Rights of the Petitioner to challenge blocking and subsequent orders

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Petitioner is entitled to challenge administrative actions including blocking of ITC and adjudicatory orders through appropriate legal remedies such as writ petitions and appeals.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court recognized the Petitioner's right to file appeals against the Order-in-Original and considered the writ petition challenging the blocking of ITC.

Key evidence and findings: The Petitioner had filed the present writ petition and was in the process of filing an appeal against the Order-in-Original.

Application of law to facts: The Court granted relief by directing the lifting of the blocking beyond one year, thereby upholding the Petitioner's rights to access ITC during pendency of appeal.

<

---