2025 (6) TMI 1721 - HC - GST

Blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) - provisionally attaching the petitioner s bank account - Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules 2017 - opportunity of hearing provided or not - reasons to believe - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The Division Bench of this Court in the case of K-9-Enterprises Vs. State of Karnataka 2024 (10) TMI 491 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT where it was held that in the absence of valid nor sufficient material which constituted reasons to believe which was available with respondents the mandatory requirements/pre- requisites/ingredients/parameters contained in Rule 86A had not been fulfilled/satisfied by the respondents- revenue who were clearly not entitled to place reliance upon borrowed satisfaction of another officer and pass the impugned orders illegally and arbitrarily blocking the ECL of the appellant by invoking Rule 86A which is not only contrary to law but also the material on record and consequently the impugned orders deserve to be quashed. In the instant case since no pre-decisional hearing are provided/granted by the respondents before passing the impugned order coupled with the fact that the impugned order invoking Section 86A blocking of the Electronic credit ledger of the petition does not contain independent or cogent reasons to believe/accept by placing reliance upon reports of enforcement authority which is impermissible in law since the same is on borrowed satisfaction as held by Division Bench the impugned order deserves to be quashed. Conclusion - i) The impugned orders blocking the Electronic Credit Ledger and provisionally attaching the petitioner s bank account are illegal arbitrary and passed without compliance with mandatory procedural and substantive requirements. ii) The respondents failed to form an independent cogent opinion based on tangible material as required under Rule 86A and Section 83 of the CGST Act. iii) The petitioner is denied the opportunity of pre-decisional hearing violating principles of natural justice. The concerned respondents are directed to unblock the Electronic credit ledger of the petitioner immediately upon the receipt of copy of this order so as to enable the petitioner to file returns forthwith - Impugned Orders are hereby quashed - petition allowed.

Summary

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:

1. Whether the impugned orders blocking the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) and provisionally attaching the petitioner's bank account were passed in compliance with the mandatory procedural and substantive requirements under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), particularly Section 83 and Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017.

2. Whether the respondents had "reasons to believe" based on independent and cogent material to justify blocking the petitioner's ECL under Rule 86A, or whether the order was based on borrowed satisfaction from another authority without proper application of mind.

3. Whether the impugned provisional attachment order complied with the strict statutory requirements of forming an opinion that such attachment was necessary to protect the interest of government revenue, and whether the doctrine of proportionality was adhered to.

4. Whether the petitioner was afforded a pre-decisional hearing before passing the impugned orders, as mandated by principles of natural justice and judicial precedents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Compliance with procedural and substantive requirements for blocking ECL under Rule 86A

The relevant legal framework includes Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017, which empowers the Commissioner or an authorized officer to block the electronic credit ledger of a registered person if there are "reasons to believe" that the input tax credit (ITC) was fraudulently availed or is ineligible. The rule mandates two pre-requisites: (i) the existence of cogent material forming the basis of the belief, and (ii) recording of reasons in writing for invoking the power.

Precedents such as the Division Bench judgment in K-9-Enterprises Vs. State of Karnataka emphasize that the power under Rule 86A is drastic and must be exercised with utmost circumspection. The "reasons to believe" must be based on independent inquiry and cannot be borrowed from another officer's findings. The CBEC Circular dated 02.11.2021 further elucidates that the Commissioner must apply mind considering all facts, including the nature of the alleged fraud, the amount involved, and the necessity to protect revenue interests.

In the instant case, the Court found that the impugned order blocking the petitioner's ECL was passed without any pre-decisional hearing and lacked independent reasons. It was based solely on a field visit report by an Assistant State Tax Officer from Goa, without any independent application of mind by the authority who blocked the ECL. The order was cryptic, vague, laconic, and did not contain any cogent reasons to believe that the petitioner had fraudulently availed ITC.

The Court held that such mechanical reliance on borrowed satisfaction violates the statutory mandate and principles of administrative law. The blocking of ECL without proper application of mind and independent satisfaction is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner, being a bona fide purchaser, cannot be penalized for the alleged default of the supplier without verification of genuineness of transactions.

Issue 2: Formation of opinion and necessity for provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act

Section 83 authorizes the Commissioner to provisionally attach any property of a taxable person during the pendency of certain proceedings if the Commissioner forms an opinion that such attachment is necessary to protect the interest of government revenue. The power is draconian and must be exercised strictly in accordance with statutory conditions.

Judicial precedents, including the Apex Court's ruling in Radha Krishan Industries and the Division Bench's observations in K-9-Enterprises, lay down that: (i) there must be a formation of opinion based on tangible material, (ii) the opinion must be that the attachment is necessary (not merely expedient) to protect revenue, (iii) the order must be reasoned and in writing, and (iv) the doctrine of proportionality must be observed to ensure the attachment is not arbitrary or excessive.

In the present case, the Court noted that the provisional attachment order was passed without recording any valid reasons or tangible material to justify the necessity of attachment. There was no finding that the petitioner was a "fly by night operator," habitual defaulter, or likely to evade payment. The impugned order merely expressed a vague apprehension that huge tax demands might arise, which is insufficient to form a valid opinion.

The Court further observed that the order was based on borrowed satisfaction from the investigation wing and lacked independent application of mind. The absence of a proximate and live nexus between the attachment and the protection of government revenue violated the doctrine of proportionality. Consequently, the provisional attachment order was held to be ultra vires and liable to be quashed.

Issue 3: Requirement of pre-decisional hearing and principles of natural justice

The Court emphasized that before exercising drastic powers such as blocking ECL or provisional attachment, the petitioner must be afforded an opportunity of hearing. This is consistent with principles of natural justice and the requirement of procedural fairness.

In the instant case, no pre-decisional hearing was granted to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders. The Court relied on the Division Bench's ruling in K-9-Enterprises, which held that such omission renders the order illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner's right to be heard before deprivation of valuable rights such as ITC credit or access to bank accounts was violated.

Issue 4: Application of the doctrine of proportionality and treatment of competing arguments

The doctrine of proportionality requires that the measures adopted by the revenue authorities must be appropriate, necessary, and not excessive in relation to the intended objective of protecting government revenue. The Court found that the impugned orders failed this test as they were passed mechanically, without adequate reasons or material, and imposed a disproportionate hardship on the petitioner.

The respondents argued that the orders were justified to protect revenue and prevent fraudulent availment of ITC. However, the Court rejected this contention due to absence of independent satisfaction, lack of tangible material, and failure to comply with procedural safeguards. The Court preserved the respondents' liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, ensuring compliance with statutory mandates and judicial precedents.

Significant Holdings:

"The power of disallowing debit of amount from electronic credit ledger must not be exercised in a mechanical manner and careful examination of all the facts of the case is important to determine case(s) fit for exercising power under rule 86A. The remedy of disallowing debit of amount from electronic credit ledger being by its very nature extraordinary, has to be resorted to with utmost circumspection and with maximum care and caution."

"When a thing is directed to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all is the well-established principle of administrative law."

"Before the Commissioner can levy a provisional attachment, there must be a formation of 'the opinion' and that it is necessary 'so to do' for the purpose of protecting the interest of the government revenue... The formation of the opinion must bear a proximate and live nexus to the purpose of protecting the interest of the government revenue."

"The exercise of unguided discretion cannot be permissible because it will leave citizens and their legitimate business activities to the peril of arbitrary power."

"Mere apprehension that huge tax demands are likely to be raised on completion of assessment is not sufficient for the purpose of passing a provisional attachment order... the exercise of the same must necessarily be preceded by the formation of an opinion that it was necessary to do so for the purpose of protecting the interest of Government revenue, that too on the basis of tangible material."

The Court's final determinations were:

- The impugned orders blocking the Electronic Credit Ledger and provisionally attaching the petitioner's bank account were illegal, arbitrary, and passed without compliance with mandatory procedural and substantive requirements.

- The respondents failed to form an independent, cogent opinion based on tangible material as required under Rule 86A and Section 83 of the CGST Act.

- The petitioner was denied the opportunity of pre-decisional hearing, violating principles of natural justice.

- The impugned orders are quashed, and the respondents are directed to unblock the ECL and de-freeze the bank accounts immediately.

- Liberty is reserved to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, ensuring compliance with the dictates of law and judicial precedents.