2025 (11) TMI 352 - HC - GST

Partial stay allowed on electronic credit ledger; relief limited to 50% of Rs.23,75,480; negative blocking continues under Rule 86(2)/86A

HC partially stayed the blocking of the petitioner's electronic credit ledger, limiting relief to 50% of the tax liability of Rs. 23,75,480. Negative ... Blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioner - availment of ITC - blocking on the ground that petitioner made purchases from various suppliers who did not exist - HELD THAT:- Since the matter would require further consideration, and considering the fact that petitioner is required to discharge tax liabilities to the extent of Rs. 23,75,480.00 for the period mentioned above, there shall be a partial stay of the impugned order, limited to 50% of the petitioner's aforesaid tax liability. The negative blocking shall continue for a sum of Rs. 37,05,811/- (48,93,551 – 11,87,740) till the next date of filing of monthly return and payment of tax. The petitioner will be entitled to debit a sum of Rs. 11,87,740/- alone from the aforesaid block credit of Rs. 48,93,551/-. The petitioner shall replenish the aforesaid block credit of Rs. 48,93,551/- before the next due date for payment of tax for the ensuing month. The negative blocking shall continue either an order passed under Rule 86(2) or an order passed under Rule 86A of the respective GST enactments. Petition disposed off. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the respondents were justified in directing blocking of the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) under Rule 86A/Rule 86 and related provisions where it is alleged that input tax credit (ITC) was taken on invoices of non-existent suppliers. 2. Whether Rule 86A(1) (and related provisional measures) can be interpreted to effect a requirement that a taxpayer replenish his ECL (i.e., a de facto order for recovery) to the extent of ITC previously availed and utilized, before determination under Sections 73/74. 3. Whether 'negative blocking' (blocking an amount greater than the balance then available in the ECL) is permissible and, if so, to what extent interim relief (partial stay) should be granted to enable the taxpayer to discharge ongoing tax liabilities and file returns. 4. The proper interplay between provisional protective measures (including orders under Section 83 or Rule 86A) and the statutory adjudicatory/assessment process under Sections 73/74 of the GST enactment. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Legality of blocking ECL where ITC alleged to be on invoices of non-existent suppliers Legal framework: Provisional protective measures under Rule 86A and Rule 86 (as applicable) and Section 83 (provisional attachment) operate alongside substantive recovery/assessment procedures under Sections 73 and 74 of the GST enactment; entitlement to ITC is governed by the statutory scheme and is subject to being disallowed if availed on ineligible or fraudulent invoices. Precedent treatment: The Court noted a recent decision of the Delhi High Court which held that revenue must proceed under Sections 73/74 for determination of amount due and that Rule 86A(1) does not contemplate an order that effectively requires replenishment of ECL for ITC utilized in the past. That decision was referenced and its relevant reasoning extracted. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted that if there are reasons to believe that ITC was fraudulently availed or ineligible, revenue may resort to protective measures pending conclusion of proceedings; however, such measures must be reconciled with the statutory process for determination under Sections 73/74. The respondents' contention that petitioner was not entitled to ITC (because suppliers did not exist) is a substantive question for Sections 73/74 proceedings; provisional blocking can be a protective step but cannot be converted into immediate recovery by compelling replenishment without the assessment process. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - provisional blocking of ECL is permissible as a protective measure where there are reasons to believe ineligible ITC was availed, but such blocking must respect the statutory assessment/recovery framework (Sections 73/74) and cannot itself be an order of recovery requiring replenishment absent assessment. Obiter - factual specifics of the suppliers and amounts listed informed the Court's practical interim approach. Conclusion: Blocking of ECL on suspicion of ITC claimed through non-existent suppliers is within the respondents' power as a provisional protective measure, but entitlement to ITC (and any final recovery) must be determined through Sections 73/74 proceedings; Rule 86A(1) cannot be treated as a standalone tool to compel replenishment of ECL as recovery. Issue 2 - Scope of Rule 86A(1) and whether it can compel replenishment of ECL (i.e., function as recovery) Legal framework: Rule 86A(1) (and analogous rules) deals with protective measures to secure government revenue; Sections 73/74 provide the statutory machinery for determination and recovery of wrongly availed ITC and tax dues. Precedent treatment: The Court expressly referred to and relied on the reasoning in the Delhi High Court decision (and recorded the department appeal's dismissal by the Supreme Court by way of dismissal of the appeal), which held that Rule 86A(1) does not envisage an order that has the effect of requiring a taxpayer to replenish ECL to compensate for ITC already availed and utilized - to do so would be to convert a protective order into a recovery order circumventing Sections 73/74. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted that treating Rule 86A(1) as authorising compelled replenishment would force the taxpayer to make immediate larger cash outflows (by denial of legitimately availed ITC) and would amount to recovery without the statutory adjudicatory steps. Thus, Rule 86A(1) must be confined to provisional protective actions and not be interpreted to bypass the substantive recovery process. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Rule 86A(1) cannot be interpreted to mandate replenishment of ECL in lieu of a recovery order; protective measures must be linked to the processes under Sections 73/74. Obiter - procedural options for revenue (e.g., Section 83 attachment) noted as legitimate protective avenues when appropriately invoked. Conclusion: Rule 86A(1) does not permit an order that operates as a de facto recovery by requiring replenishment of ECL; final determination of liability must proceed under Sections 73/74. Issue 3 - Permissibility and limits of negative blocking; interlocutory relief Legal framework: Revenue may provisionally secure credits by blocking ECL balances; the concept of 'negative blocking' (blocking exceeding current ledger balance) arises when aggregate disputed credit exceeds the available ECL balance. Equitable/interim relief principles govern stays/partial stays pending adjudication, particularly where blocking hampers a taxpayer's ability to discharge current tax liabilities and file returns. Precedent treatment: The Court took cognisance of the precedent described above and the departmental stance; no direct overrule of revenue's power to block was made, but the Court balanced revenue protection with taxpayer's business exigencies. Interpretation and reasoning: On the specific facts - (i) the impugned block related to Rs. 62,33,318/- alleged ineligible ITC; (ii) petitioner's ECL balance on blocking was Rs. 14,20,766/- leaving a negative block; and (iii) petitioner faced immediate monthly tax liabilities of Rs. 23,75,480/- and could not file returns - the Court found further consideration necessary. To prevent disproportionate hardship and to permit discharge of current liabilities, the Court ordered a limited, structured interim relief: a partial stay of the impugned order limited to 50% of the petitioner's immediate tax liability, allowing the petitioner to debit a specified portion from the blocked credit while the negative blocking for the remainder continued subject to conditions. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where blocking of ECL causes immediate inability to discharge statutory tax liabilities and file returns, court may grant a tailored interim relief (partial stay) balancing revenue protection and the taxpayer's operational needs; negative blocking may continue in part, subject to conditions (replenishment, debit limits, and timeframe). Obiter - specific arithmetic adjustments and directions are fact-sensitive to the amounts and periods before the Court. Conclusion: Negative blocking is not per se impermissible, but equitable interim relief is available. The Court granted a partial stay (permitting debit of a defined sum and requiring replenishment before subsequent due dates) while leaving the substantive dispute for Sections 73/74 (and Rule 86A/86) proceedings. Issue 4 - Interplay between provisional measures and assessment under Sections 73/74; timeline for administrative action Legal framework: Sections 73/74 set out assessment/recovery for ITC wrongly availed; Section 83 and Rules 86/86A provide for provisional measures to protect revenue pending adjudication. Administrative expediency and prompt adjudication serve both revenue interests and taxpayer protections. Precedent treatment: The Court relied on the proposition (from the cited decision) that provisional measures must be coherently linked to the assessment process and may not circumvent it; the respondents were directed to proceed expeditiously with statutory proceedings. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court directed respondents to endeavour to pass orders under Rule 86A and under Section 73/74 within an expedited period (preferably 30 days from receipt of the order), recognizing the need for a prompt determination so that provisional measures either become final or are lifted, thus reducing prolonged uncertainty for the taxpayer while safeguarding revenue. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - protective blocking must be accompanied by timely initiation and conclusion of the statutory assessment/recovery process; courts can direct expedition to prevent undue prejudice. Obiter - procedural suggestions for revenue action. Conclusion: Provisional measures and substantive assessment must proceed in tandem; the respondents were directed to expeditiously conclude proceedings (preferably within 30 days), while the interim directions (partial stay and conditions) remain until such orders are passed.