The blocking of Electronic Credit Ledger under Rule 86A must be based on independent analysis and cannot rely solely on borrowed satisfaction; pre-decisional hearing is mandatory.

ORDER :

S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

1. In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-

“(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 11.09.2025 bearing reference No. BL2909250000218, passed by the Respondent No.2 herein (Annexure A);

(b) Grant such other relief that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to deem fit in the facts of the present case.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the Electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioner having been blocked by the respondents on 11.09.2025, without providing pre-decisional hearing as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of K-9-Enterprises Vs. State of Karnataka reported in W.A.No.100425/2023 and connected matters, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

4. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. The undisputed material on record will indicate that prior to blocking the Electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioner, the respondents did not provide any pre-decisional hearing nor issue any notice in this regard.

6. In K-9-Enterprises’s case referred to supra, the following points were answered in favour of the petitioner by holding as under:

"8.13 In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge clearly fell in error in coming to the conclusion that a pre-decisional hearing was not required to have been provided/granted to the appellants by the respondents- revenue prior to passing the impugned orders blocking the ECL of the appellants and consequently, the said findings recorded by the learned Single Judge deserve to be set aside.

9. The next point that arises for consideration is as to whether the respondents-revenue were justified in passing the impugned orders blocking the Electronic Credit Ledgers of the appellants by invoking Rule 86A of the CGST Rules which mandates that the respondents-revenue should have ‘reasons to believe’ that the ITC available in the ECL was fraudulently availed or was ineligible as contemplated in the said provision; in this regard, the learned Single Judge noticed that 2 pre-requisites/conditions had to be satisfied/fulfilled before invocation of Rule 86A and blocking the ECL of the appellants and held as under:

18. The first requisite of the Rule which is required to be considered by the competent authority is with regard to the basis of material available before he taking any action for blocking of electronic credit ledger. The second pre-requisite is of recording the reasons in writing for invoking the powers under Rule 86A of the Rules of 2017. Unless the aforesaid two pre-requisites are fulfilled, the competent authority cannot invoke the powers under Rule 86A of the Rules of 2017 for the purpose of disallowing the debit of the determined amount to the electronic credit ledger or to block the electronic credit ledger even to the extent of amount fraudulently or wrongly availed by the petitioners/assessee.

9.1 However, the learned Single Judge came to the erroneous conclusion that the respondents-revenue had fulfilled/satisfied the aforesaid twin/dual pre- requisites/requirements viz., respondents had ‘reasons to believe’ which were based on cogent material available with them to invoke Rule 86A of the CGST Rules; in this context, the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the only ‘rea