HC Quashes Credit Ledger Block for Lack of Hearing and Reasons

GST • News • Case Chronicles

Rule 86A Credit Ledger Blocking
Case Details: Lead Factory Versus Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (2025) 32 Centax 98 (Kar.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • S.R.Krishna Kumar, J.
  • Shri Surendran J.G. Thumbuchetty, Adv. for the Petitioner.
  • S/Shri Aditya Vikram Bhat, AGA & Madanan Pillai, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a registered person under the CGST Act and Karnataka GST Act, challenged the blocking of their electronic credit ledger by an order passed under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules and Karnataka GST Rules. The jurisdictional officer invoked Rule 86A based on reports from the enforcement authority, alleging that the petitioner was involved in availment of fake invoices and that the declared business premises were non-existent. The petitioner submitted that the impugned order was passed without granting any pre-decisional hearing, and it failed to disclose any independent or cogent reasons. It was contended that the authority had merely placed reliance on third-party reports without forming its own satisfaction, thus amounting to borrowed satisfaction in law. No specific material or investigation was cited in the impugned order except the generic assertion regarding the petitioner’s status as a bill trader. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court of Karnataka.

High Court Held

The Karnataka High Court held that the blocking of the electronic credit ledger was vitiated by procedural and legal infirmities. It observed that the impugned order was a non-speaking one, unsupported by any independent reasons recorded by the jurisdictional officer under CGST. The Court emphasised that Rule 86A requires the formation of an independent reason to believe, which cannot be substituted by unverified reliance on enforcement reports. The absence of a pre-decisional hearing further violated the principles of natural justice. The Court concluded that the invocation of Rule 86A in this manner was impermissible and quashed the order.

List of Cases Cited

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Stories
HC Quashes GST Demand Order for Denial of Hearing | Fresh Notice Directed

GST • News • Case Chronicles

November 4, 2025

Recovery During GST Search Without SCN Held Illegal—Refund with Interest Ordered | HC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

November 4, 2025

Copy of CGST (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2025

GST • News • Statutory Scope

November 3, 2025

GSTN Launches ‘Import of Goods’ Module in IMS from Oct 2025

GST • News • Statutory Scope

November 1, 2025

GSTN Bars Filing of GST Returns Beyond 3 Years From Due Date

GST • News • Statutory Scope

October 31, 2025

CBIC Defines Officer Jurisdiction and Monetary Limits for SCNs and Orders Under CGST Act

GST • News • Statutory Scope

October 30, 2025

HC Quashes ITC Demand Order Passed Without Hearing After GST Cancellation

GST • News • Case Chronicles

October 29, 2025

HC Dismisses Writ for Delay in Challenging Order Before Filing Refund Claim

GST • News • Case Chronicles

October 28, 2025

HC Remands Case Over Inconsistent Refund Orders Passed on Similar Facts

GST • News • Case Chronicles

October 28, 2025

HC Upholds GST Goods Detention for Missing Documents at Interception

GST • News • Case Chronicles

October 27, 2025