Case Law Details
M/s Vimal Petrothin Private Limited. Vs Commissioner, CGST and others (Uttarakhand High Court)
Petitioner’s electronic credit ledger cannot be blocked for any period in excess of one year, in view of express provision contained in Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 86(A) of C.G.S. T. Rules. Thus, he submits that petitioner’s contention to this extent is correct that continuance of blockage of his input credit ledger after 14.01.2021 is not supported by any law.
In view of the admission by the respondents, through their counsel, that continuance of blockage of petitioner’s electronic credit ledger cannot continue beyond one year, the writ petition stands allowed. Respondent no. 1 is directed to forthwith unblock input tax credit availed by the petitioner in its electronic credit ledger. However, this order will not preclude the respondents from taking such action against the petitioner, as is permissible under law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Petitioner is a Private Limited Company, having its manufacturing unit at Haridwar. Petitioner’s input tax credit available in its electronic trading ledger was provisionally blocked on the ground that petitioner had availed input tax credit, amounting to Rs. 1.5 crores, based on fake invoices issued by non-existing firms. The said blockage was made on 15.01.2020 under Rule 86(A)(1) of C.G.S.T. Rules, 2017. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking the following relief:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
