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
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
AIR 1968 SC 647
(2003) 2 SCC 111
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
