GST Authorities Cannot Ignore a Filed Reply or Use Negative ITC Blocking as a Recovery Tool

A Taxpayer's Defence Must Be Considered Before Liability Is Confirmed

A taxpayer's opportunity to reply is meaningful only when the reply is examined before a decision is made. Uploading a response on the GST portal should not become an empty exercise because the adjudicating authority proceeds on the incorrect assumption that nothing was filed. Equally, an allegation of wrongful input tax credit does not permit the Department to use a protective ledger restriction as an unrestricted recovery mechanism. Consideration of the defence and lawful exercise of recovery powers are separate safeguards, and both must be respected.

These issues arose in M/s. Mishka Steels LLP & Anr. Versus Superintendent of Central Goods and Service Tax & CX & Ors. - 2026 (10) TMI 1379 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT. Hon'ble Justice Smita Das De of the Calcutta High Court dealt with WPA No. 6228 of 2026 with CAN No. 1 of 2026. The substantive order dated 12.10.2026, read with the correction order dated 14.10.2026, concerned an ignored reply, an ex parte demand, cancellation of registration and negative blocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger.

The demand order was set aside, and reconsideration was directed. However, the authorities did not unconditionally restore registration and ledger operations, nor did they finally allow the disputed credit. The judgment required the authorities to reconsider the matter through the proper process while preserving their ability to take lawful action if contraventions were established.

An Uploaded Reply Could Not Be Treated as Though It Did Not Exist

The petitioners challenged a show-cause notice dated 17.01.2025 in Form GST DRC-01 and the consequential adjudication order dated 14.01.2026. Their central objection was straightforward: a reply dated 16.02.2025 had been uploaded on the common portal in Form GST DRC-06, yet the authority proceeded on the basis that no reply had been filed. The resulting ex parte order confirmed a demand described in the judgment as Rs.2.90 crore, including tax and penalty.

The uploaded reply was evident from the material placed before the High Court. The finding of non-submission therefore rested on an incorrect factual premise. This was not merely a complaint that the authority had disagreed with the taxpayer. The more basic problem was that the decision proceeded without recognising and considering an existing defence. An order cannot meaningfully address submissions it incorrectly treats as absent.

The practical distinction matters in other disputes. An authority may consider a reply and reject it with reasons, or it may lawfully proceed where the taxpayer has not responded despite an effective opportunity. Neither situation is the same as overlooking a reply actually filed. The validity of an ex parte order depends on the real procedural record, not simply on the description given to the proceedings.

Serious ITC Allegations Did Not Remove the Need for Proper Adjudication

The Department opposed relief by alleging repeated availment of inadmissible ITC through invoices issued by non-existent or non-functioning suppliers, without underlying supplies. It further alleged that such credit was passed on to other recipients. According to the initial investigation, wrongful availment and utilisation amounted to Rs.3,96,96,478, allegedly admitted in a voluntary statement dated 09.12.2025 by one of the partners, Sri Han Raj Gupta. These submissions explained the Department's concerns but remained distinct from final judicial findings.

The figures must also be kept separate. The Rs.3,96,96,478 allegation in the investigation was not identified as the same as the Rs.2.90 crore demand, including tax and penalty, discussed in the impugned order. The judgment does not provide a basis for combining them, treating them as interchangeable, or deriving a fresh tax-and-penalty breakup. Accurate analysis requires preserving the character in which each amount appears in the record.

The seriousness of an allegation does not dispense with the examination of the reply, supporting documents, or explanation. A statement relied upon by the Department may be relevant evidence, but its significance must be considered through lawful adjudication. Conversely, setting aside a procedurally defective order does not establish that the allegation was false. The need to protect revenue and the duty to decide fairly operate together; neither replaces the other.

Ledger In-operation and Negative Blocking Require Separate Examination

During the writ proceedings, the petitioners received an intimation dated 29.05.2026, in Form GST REG-31, of proposed suspension and cancellation. Registration was subsequently cancelled on 19.08.2026. The Department attributed the cancellation to non-filing of returns for six months. The petitioners complained that the ledger had become inoperative and that business had come to a standstill. They also submitted that no order for negative blocking had been passed.

These matters should not be reduced to a single undifferentiated grievance. Cancellation of registration, inability to operate the ledger, and a restriction under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017 may affect the same business but raise distinct legal questions. The relevant notice, order, portal entry, and statutory basis must identify the action taken and the reason for it. An inability to use the ledger does not, without examining those records, establish every element of a challenge to negative blocking.

The judgment required reconsideration of both non-filing of returns and negative blocking. It should not be understood as holding that difficulty in using credit automatically excuses every failure to file returns. Nor does an investigation into alleged fraudulent credit automatically validate every restriction. The authority must connect the particular action with the power exercised and the conditions governing it.

Negative Blocking Cannot Turn Future Credit Into Recovery of Past Credit

The petitioners relied on paragraph 82 of Best Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. Through Authorized Representative, Sh Raghav Agarwal, M/s. Jai Maa Enterprises, Hilbert Innovations Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Ndcon Constructions, GNG Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Kay Kay Overseas Corporation, Shri Balaji Polymers Through Its Proprietor Mr. Anil Kumar Versus Principal Commissioner, CGST Commissionerate, Meerut And Ors., Commissioner Of Central Tax And GST Delhi North & Ors., Principal Chief Commissioner CGST And CX, Delhi & Ors. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax & Anr., Sale Tax Officer Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax And Another. - 2024 (9) TMI 1543 - DELHI HIGH COURT. The Delhi High Court distinguished a temporary restriction on available credit from recovery of credit already used. Rule 86A(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 did not authorise requiring replenishment of the ledger with subsequently available valid credit against allegedly inadmissible credit utilised in the past. That would turn the restriction into a recovery measure.

A simple illustration explains the concern. Suppose credit allegedly wrongly availed has already been used, and the authority creates a negative restriction against that historical amount. Valid credit arising later may then remain unavailable until the negative amount is absorbed. The taxpayer is effectively required to accumulate fresh credit against the earlier disputed utilisation. The objection is to using negative blocking for that purpose, rather than following the applicable determination and recovery process.

This does not make all blocking unlawful or establish that disputed credit is necessarily admissible. A restriction that satisfies the applicable requirements raises a different question than negative blocking intended to absorb future credit. In Mishka Steels, the cited reasoning required the authority to reconsider its action. The distinction concerns the permissible use of the power, not immunity from a liability subsequently established according to law.

A Short SLP Dismissal Must Be Described According to Its Actual Scope

The judgment also referred to DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE, DZU & ORS. Versus KINGS SECURITY GUARD SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR - 2025 (5) TMI 1519 - SC Order. By its order dated 16.05.2025, the Supreme Court dismissed the Department's special leave petition challenging the Delhi High Court's decision. The dismissal left that decision undisturbed, but the short order did not independently examine every aspect of Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017.

Importantly, the order expressly kept other remedies for recovery in accordance with law open. The order should therefore not be presented either as a detailed Supreme Court exposition of the entire blocking framework or as extinguishing the Department's recovery rights. Its terms preserved the distinction between the challenged action and other legally available remedies.

The practical conclusion is limited but important: inability to sustain negative blocking does not automatically eliminate the alleged tax liability. The Department must use an available lawful procedure, with its conditions and safeguards. A restriction on one method of action is not a declaration that no lawful action can follow.

Registration and Ledger Access Were Not Restored Unconditionally

The operative directions required an examination of the non-filing of returns for six months and the negative blocking, in light of the cited decisions. Upon being satisfied, the adjudicating authority was to direct the concerned authority to take the necessary steps to revoke the cancellation and restore ledger operations. Those steps remained subject to law and to compliance with statutory formalities.

The qualification is central to the relief. The judgment did not itself declare that every condition for revocation had already been fulfilled, nor did it immediately direct unconditional operation of the ledger. A taxpayer relying on the decision must therefore distinguish a direction for lawful reconsideration from an order conclusively restoring registration. The remaining requirements cannot be treated as having disappeared merely because the demand order was set aside.

Equally, reconsideration cannot be reduced to a formal repetition of the earlier position. The authority must address the return-filing issue, the nature of the ledger restriction and the principles identified in the judgment. The directions sought a lawful resolution that would enable business to operate where the requirements were met, while expressly preserving the right to take action under law if contraventions were found.

Fresh Adjudication Must Address the Defence and Explain the Result

The adjudication order dated 14.01.2026 was quashed and set aside. The Court directed Respondent No.3 to revisit the matter after considering the petitioners' reply dated 16.02.2025 and to afford a personal hearing to the petitioners and any other stakeholders. A fresh decision therefore requires substantive consideration of the defence, not merely correcting the statement that no reply was filed.

A reasoned order should make clear which material submissions were accepted or rejected and why. It need not reproduce every document or answer every sentence. However, where a submission could affect liability, the reasoning must address it. If the Department relies on transaction records, supplier-related findings, or a partner's statement, the decision should explain their relevance and address the taxpayer's material response. These are practical requirements of the fresh examination, not findings that any particular document necessarily proves or disproves entitlement.

The directions specified four weeks from the date of communication of the order for reconsideration, with communication of the decision within one week thereafter. The order also expressly required completion of the entire exercise on or before 15.11.2026. Both directions should be noted rather than replaced by an assumed timetable. The petitioners were instructed not to seek unnecessary adjournments.

Setting Aside the Order Did Not Finally Allow the Disputed ITC

The relief removed an adjudication based on the erroneous assumption that no reply had been filed. It did not finally decide the genuineness of the purchases, the eligibility of the credit, the significance of the statement relied upon, or the resulting tax and penalty consequences. Those questions remained for an independent decision on the evidence and applicable law.

The authority was directed to decide independently, and the Department was not prevented from taking necessary lawful steps if contraventions were established. The Court also did not treat the absence of an affidavit-in-opposition as an admission of the allegations in the writ petition. This qualification prevents the procedural outcome from becoming a substantive declaration that the petitioners' entire factual account was accepted.

The court did not direct any quantified refund, release of cash, or interest award. The Court disposed of the writ petition and connected application through reconsideration and conditional consequential directions. The judgment restored the requirement of lawful decision-making; it did not substitute a final judicial allowance of the disputed credit.

The Record Must Support Both the Demand and the Restriction

Taxpayers should preserve their replies, portal acknowledgements, and records supporting any challenge to registration or ledger restrictions. The Department must examine the actual defence and establish the legal basis for each action, rather than rely solely on portal entries or investigation allegations.

A filed reply cannot be ignored, and negative blocking cannot replace lawful recovery. However, procedural relief does not establish ITC eligibility or excuse non-compliance. The taxpayer must substantiate its claim, and the authority must decide it on the basis of evidence, reasons, and the prescribed procedure.

***