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Your email address will not be published.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
GSTN Upgrades GSTR-3B Interest and Tax Reporting from Jan 2026

GST • News • Statutory Scope

February 1, 2026

Common Director Not Ground to Lift Corporate Veil | HC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

January 31, 2026

GST Appeal Allowed Despite Delay Due to Illness | HC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

January 30, 2026

HC Orders Reconsideration of Excess ITC Denial on Imports

GST • News • Case Chronicles

January 30, 2026

Bail Granted After Prolonged Custody Before Trial | SC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

January 29, 2026

Refund Cannot Be Rejected After Eligibility Accepted | HC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

January 28, 2026

GSTN Advisory On RSP Based Valuation Of Tobacco Under GST

GST • News • Statutory Scope

January 27, 2026

Writ Not Maintainable Against SCN Under GST | SC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

January 24, 2026

Writ Not Maintainable Against SCN Under Section 74 | SC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

January 23, 2026

Refund Of Statutory Pre-Deposit Becomes Vested Right | SC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

January 22, 2026