Case Law Details
M J Gold Vs Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Kerala High Court)
Introduction: In the case of M J Gold vs. Joint Commissioner of State Tax, the Kerala High Court addresses the issue of blocking an electronic credit ledger without granting the opportunity for a hearing. The petitioner challenges the communication and order that led to the blocking of their GST credit ledger. This article delves into the detailed analysis and outcome of the Kerala High Court’s decision.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Background: The petitioner, M J Gold, received a communication dated September 4, 2023 (Ext.P6), which informed them that their input tax credit of Rs. 9,58,000/- had been blocked for their GST registration number (GSTIN 32AAOFM7935N1ZM). Furthermore, the petitioner claimed that they were not provided with an opportunity to present their case before the issuance of this communication and the subsequent order (Ext.P7) that blocked their electronic credit ledger.
2. Petitioner’s Argument: The petitioner’s counsel argued that the lack of an opportunity for a hearing violated their rights and due process. They contended that proper procedures were not followed in blocking their credit ledger.
3. Government Pleader’s Response: The learned Government Pleader acknowledged that the petitioner had not been given a chance to be heard before the issuance of Ext.P6 and Ext.P7. The government recognized the omission in the due process.
4. Kerala HC’s Decision: In light of the facts presented, the Kerala High Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. The petitioner was instructed to appear before the first respondent at 3:00 p.m. on September 20, 2023, with all relevant documents. The first respondent was tasked with taking a fresh decision in accordance with the law. If the decision-making process faced delays or if the first respondent was unable to reach a verdict on that day, the petitioner’s electronic credit ledger would be unblocked to facilitate the filing of returns. The first respondent was urged to make earnest efforts to issue fresh orders on the matter the following day.
Conclusion: In the case of M J Gold vs. Joint Commissioner of State Tax, the Kerala High Court has directed re-adjudication concerning the blocking of the petitioner’s electronic credit ledger. The Court emphasized the importance of affording the petitioner an opportunity for a hearing, as proper procedures were not followed in the initial blocking of the credit ledger. This case underscores the significance of due process and fair treatment in matters related to GST and tax regulations.
With these directives, the writ petition has been finally disposed of, and any pending interlocutory applications in the case have been dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning Ext.P6 communication dated 4.9.2023 and Ext.P7 order blocking the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has been informed vide Ext.P6 dated 4.9.2023 that input tax credit of Rs.9,58,000/- was blocked for the petitioner’s GST registration number (GSTIN 32AAOFM7935N1ZM). The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before issuing the communication dated 4.9.2023, Ext.P6, and blocking of his credit ledger as per Ext.P7 on the same date.
3. Learned Government Pleader on instructions, submits that, in fact, the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity before issuing communication, Ext.P6, and order, Ext.P7.
4. Considering the aforesaid facts, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the first respondent at 3.00 p.m. tomorrow (20.09.2023) with all relevant documents, for the first respondent to take a fresh decision, in accordance with law. If the decision making process is delayed or the first respondent is unable to take a decision tomorrow, the petitioner’s electronic credit ledger shall be unblocked to enable the petitioner to file its return. The first respondent shall make earnest efforts to pass fresh orders as above tomorrow itself.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, in the writ petition would stand dismissed.
