AJ Power Center Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Date: September 2, 2024
Subject Matter
Order blocking Electronic Credit Ledger without considering reply unjustified
Summary
In this case, the Madras High Court addressed the issue surrounding the blocking of the GST Electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioner by the tax department, which occurred through an order dated July 4, 2024. In response, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to reverse this blockage on July 18, 2024. However, the department did not consider this representation, leading the petitioner to appeal to the court. The court recognized that the representation had not been addressed and thereby ordered the tax department (respondent) to consider the petitioner’s reply and dispose of it within two weeks from the receipt of the court's order. As a result, the court focused on ensuring that the procedure for addressing grievances regarding the blockage of the Electronic Credit Ledger was appropriately followed, ultimately seeking a resolution to the delay in considering the petitioner’s representation. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no costs assigned.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 04.07.2024 passed by the 1st respondent.
2. Mr. K. Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petitions are taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the present case, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent on 04.07.2024 blocking the GST Electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed their detailed reply/representation for unblocking the said Ledger by virtue of letter dated 18.07.2024. However, the same was not at all considered by the respondent till date. Hence, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders directing the respondent to consider the reply filed by the petitioner.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent on 04.07.2024, against which, the reply/representation was filed by the petitioner by virtue of letter dated 18.07.2024 and the same is yet to be considered by the respondent. Further, he would submit that the reply filed by the petitioner will be considered by the respondent as expeditiously as possible and requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned 3/6 Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.
6. In the present case, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order dated 04.07.2024 blocking the Credit Ledger of the petitioner and hence, a detailed reply was filed by the petitioner by virtue of letter dated 18.07.2024 requesting the respondent to unblock the said Ledger. However, the same was not at all considered by the respondent till date.
7. In view of the above, though this petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 04.07.2024, considering the submissions made by the petitioner, this Court directs the respondents to dispose of the reply/representation dated 18.07.2024 filed by the petitioner within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.