The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in S S Con Cast Private Limited vs Union of India and Others [CM-18640-CWP-2024 in/and CWP-19104-2024 (O&M) and CWP-19806-2024, order dated November 18, 2024] held that input tax credit ledger cannot be negatively blocked beyond 10% of the tentative tax demand at the interim stage, as held in precedents.
Facts:
S S Con Cast Private Limited (“the Petitioner”) challenged the negative blocking of its input tax credit ledger under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017. It contended that such negative balance was impermissible and invited the Court’s attention to various High Court rulings, including K.J. International v. State of Punjab [CWP-22514-2023 Judgment dated October 6, 2023], where the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that credit cannot be blocked beyond 10% of the disputed amount assessed, as this correlates to the statutory pre-deposit requirement under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
The Petitioner submitted that other High Courts such as Delhi, Gujarat and Telangana have also ruled against the concept of negative blocking, whereas the Allahabad and Calcutta High Courts have taken a contrary view.
Issue:
Whether the negative blocking of input tax credit beyond 10% of the tentative tax demand is legally sustainable at the interim stage?
Held:
The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CM-18640-CWP-2024 in/and CWP-19104-2024 (O&M) and CWP-19806-2024 held as under:
- Observed that, the legal issue of whether negative blocking of the ITC ledger is permissible under Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, 2017, requires detailed examination.
- Noted that, in J. International v. State of Punjab, it was held that blocking of ITC cannot exceed 10% of the disputed amount assessed, aligning with the condition of pre-deposit for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
- Held that, at this interim stage, the respondents may block only 10% of the tentative amount of the tax which may be assessed provisionally.
- Further directed that ITC in excess of the said 10% must be unblocked immediately.
Our Comments:
The Delhi High Court, in the case of Best Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner [W.P.(C) 10980/2024 and CM Nos.45297/2024 and 45298/2024, Judgment dated September 24, 2024], held that Rule 86A cannot authorize negative blocking, as it only applies to the ITC balance actually available in the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL).
In contrast, the Madras High Court in Tvl. Skanthaguru Innovations Pvt. Ltd. [W.P. No. 29872 of 2024, Judgment dated November 24, 2024], upheld negative blocking, interpreting “available in the ECL” to include even nil or negative balances, based on a functional rather than a restrictive reading of Rule 86A.
Similarly, the Calcutta High Court in Basanta Kumar Shaw vs Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, Commercial Taxes and State Tax [MAT 976 of 2022, Judgment dated July 28, 2022], adopted a broader view, holding that Rule 86A applies even in the absence of a positive balance, as its purpose is preventive, not merely remedial.
In light of such conflicting interpretations, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued notice to decide the legal issue, and the matter is listed for hearing in August 2025 in Deputy Director & Anr. Etc. vs. Ramesh Kumar Yadav & Anr. Etc. [SLP (C) Diary No. 31866/2025, order dated July 11, 2025]. Until then, interim relief granted by High Courts in K.J. International v. State of Punjab remains binding in respective jurisdictions.
Relevant Provision:
Rule 86A – Conditions of use of amount available in electronic credit ledger
(1) The Commissioner or an officer authorised by him in this behalf, not below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner, having reasons to believe that credit of input tax available in the electronic credit ledger has been fraudulently availed or is ineligible in as much as-
a) the credit of input tax has been availed on the strength of tax invoices or debit notes or any other document prescribed under rule 36-
i. issued by a registered person who has been found non-existent or not to be conducting any business from any place for which registration has been obtained; or
ii. without receipt of goods or services or both; or
b) the credit of input tax has been availed on the strength of tax invoices or debit notes or any other document prescribed under rule 36 in respect of any supply, the tax charged in respect of which has not been paid to the Government; or
c) the registered person availing the credit of input tax has been found non-existent or not to be conducting any business from any place for which registration has been obtained; or
d) the registered person availing any credit of input tax is not in possession of a tax invoice or debit note or any other document prescribed under rule 36, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, not allow debit of an amount equivalent to such credit in electronic credit ledger for discharge of any liability under section 49 or for claim of any refund of any unutilised amount.
(2) The Commissioner, or the officer authorised by him under sub-rule (1) may, upon being satisfied that conditions for disallowing debit of electronic credit ledger as above, no longer exist, allow such debit.
(3) Such restriction shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of imposing such restriction.”
CLICK HERE FOR OFFICIAL JUDGMENT COPY
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
