Bombay High Court
Aegis Polymers vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on 12 July, 2021
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: Dipankar Datta, G. S. Kulkarni
12wpl-128-21.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (LODG)NO. 128 OF 2021
M/s.Aegis Polymers .. Petitioner
vs.
Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents
----
Mr.Rahul Thakar i/b. C.B.Thakar, for the Petitioner.
Mr.Sham Walve with Ms.Sangeeta Yadav, for Union of India-Respondent
no.1.
Ms.Jyoti Chavan, AGP for the State.
----
CORAM :- DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &
G. S. KULKARNI, J.
Date :- July 12, 2021.
PC :
1. Heard Mr.Thakar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Walve, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and Ms.Chavan, learned AGP appearing for the State.
2. The primary grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is to an action of the respondents in blocking of the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner by virtue of which the petitioner could Prashant Rane 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2021 21:22:57 ::: 12wpl-128-21.doc not avail the benefit of the input credit. Such blockage was undertaken on January 28, 2020. Although there are diverse reliefs claimed in the petition, Mr.Thakar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has very fairly pointed out that by operation of law, the impugned blockage would cease to have effect by virtue of the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 86A of the CGST Rules,2017. The Rule reads thus:-
"86A. Conditions of use of amount available in electronic credit ledger.- (1)... ... ...
(2)... ... ...
(3) Such restriction shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of imposing such restriction."
3. Mr.Walve, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue would not dispute such contention as urged by Mr.Thakar. He would however, submit that there is a show cause notice dated October 24, 2019 issued to the petitioner, to which no reply has been submitted.
4. We have perused the record. It appears to us that there was some technical error on the part of the petitioner in wrongly submitting the details of the input credit in different forms than the requisite form. Be that at it may, we do not intend to dwell on such issues, suffice it to observe that the primary concern of the petitioner appears to have been redressed by operation of sub-rule (3) of Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, to Prashant Rane 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2021 21:22:57 ::: 12wpl-128-21.doc the effect that the impugned blockage has ceased to have effect, as already a period of more than one year has passed, after the electronic ledger of the petitioner was blocked on January 28, 2020.
5. We accordingly dispose of the petition, keeping all contentions of the parties open on other issues. No costs.
(G. S. KULKARNI, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) Prashant Rane 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2021 21:22:57 :::