Telangana High Court
M/S.Chilukuri Enterprises vs The Deputy Commissioner Stui on 2 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION NOS.2040 AND 14364 OF 2024
COMMON ORDER (per Hon'ble SP,J)
Sri Shaik Jeelani Basha and Sri M.Umashankar, learned counsel appears for the petitioners, learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of India, and Bokaro Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, respectively, appearing for the respondent No.4.
2. Regard being had to the similarity of the question involved, on the joint request of the parties, the matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order.
3. The singular point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners' Electronic Credit Ledger is unilaterally blocked by the respondents without affording any opportunity to them. This point is no more res integra in view of the recent order of this Court passed in W.P.No.10390 of 2024 decided on 26.06.2024.
4. It is argued that this Court clearly held that the principles of natural justice must be read in Rule 86-A of the CGST Rules, 2017. In the instant case, since the Electronic 2 Credit Ledger has been blocked without affording opportunity, the said impugned orders may be set aside and the order passed by this Court may be followed.
5. Other side opposed the prayer, but did not dispute that the singular point raised is squarely covered by a recent order passed in the aforesaid case.
6. Thus, we deem it appropriate to follow the principles laid down by this Court recently. This Court in W.P.No.10390 of 2024 decided on 26.06.2024 held as under:
"We have gone through the judgment in the case of Basanta Kumar Shaw (cited supra). A plain reading of the judgment shows that the question whether the principles of natural justice are to be read into Rule 86A was not subject matter of discussion. The Calcutta High Court opined that Input Tax Credit is a concession and not a vested right. In our view, Rule 86A neither expressly nor by necessary implication excludes the principles of natural justice, the principles of natural justice for the detailed reasons given hereinabove must be read into the provision. The judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Basanta Kumar Shaw (cited supra) is not an authority on the aforesaid aspect. It is trite that precedent is what is actually decided by the Court and not what is logically following from it (see State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra 1). It is equally settled that a singular different fact may change the precedential value of the judgment (see Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd 2).
In view of foregoing analysis, the impugned action cannot be countenanced. The action of blocking the electronic credit ledger of the petitioners without 1 AIR 1968 SC 647 2 (2003) 2 SCC 111 3 following the principles of natural justice and without assigning adequate reasons cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Thus, the impugned action in all the Writ Petitions is set aside. The liberty is reserved to the Department to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
7. In view of the principles laid down in the said case, the impugned action of unilaterally blocking the Electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioners cannot be countenanced.
8. Resultantly, the said action is set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.
9. The Writ Petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
____________________ JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL ______________________________________ JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO Date: 02.07.2024 Bdr/Prv