Back
Metal Trade Incorporation's ITC Must Be Unblocked After One Year:
In a significant ruling on the limits of blocking under GST, the has directed the tax authorities to immediately unblock the ITC of Metal Trade Incorporation, a Chennai-based iron and steel trader. The court held that any restriction imposed under Rule 86A of the GST Rules cannot continue beyond one year, and must .
A Prolonged Blockade
The dispute began when the issued summons to Metal Trade Incorporation in under . During the ensuing proceedings, the issued communications in May and September 2023, alleging that the company was a and a "," and directing the blocking of ITC claimed by its beneficiaries under Rule 86A. The petitioner's ITC was blocked on .
More than two-and-a-half years later, the credit remained frozen. Metal Trade Incorporation approached the High Court, challenging the continued blockage. While the company initially raised multiple grounds, its counsel eventually narrowed the challenge to a single point: the continuance of the ITC restriction beyond the statutory one-year period.
The Core Legal Question
At the heart of the case lay
, which explicitly states that a restriction imposed under sub-rule (1)
"shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of imposing such restriction."
The petitioner argued that despite this clear mandate, the authorities had kept its credit ledger blocked for over two-and-a-half years, causing severe civil consequences.
The State, represented by , argued essentially based on the ongoing investigation and the subsequent communication dated , which they contended justified the continued blockage.
Court's Stance: Strict Adherence to Statutory Limit
Justice S. Raveekumar rejected the department's stance, emphasising the plain language of the rule.
"The language employed under Rule 86A(3) clearly explicates that the restriction is valid only for a period of one year and that it shall cease to have any effect upon the expiry of such period,"
the court observed.
The judge noted that the restriction had been imposed on
, and more than two-and-a-half years had passed.
"Just because the third respondent had passed the impugned communication on 13.09.2023, the blocking of ITC under Section 86A cannot continue beyond one year,"
he held.
The court also highlighted the purpose behind the time limit:
"The purpose of having such a restriction is to ensure that the assessment proceedings are completed in such cases at the earliest, as the blockage/denial of Input Tax Credit … cannot be continued indefinitely, as it will have
."
Importantly, the court observed that the authorities often fail to lift the restriction even after one year, leading to numerous writ petitions. It pointed to
, which provides a separate mechanism for recovery of tax after completion of assessment.
"The proper course for the
would be to initiate regular recovery proceedings … after completing the assessment,"
the court clarified.
Key Observations
"The restriction was imposed on 27.01.2023 and more than 2 ½ years have passed. In view of the same, the restrictions on the blockage upon expiry of one year and therefore, cannot be continued."
"The language employed under Rule 86A(3) clearly explicates that the restriction is valid only for a period of one year and that it shall cease to have any effect upon the expiry of such period."
"The appropriate authority also does not raise the attachment or cancel the blockage even after one year and as a result, numerous writ petitions have been filed challenging the continuation of such restriction even after the expiry of one year."
"Such a communication alone cannot be the basis to invoke Section 86A and the appropriate authority must ensure that the requirements under Section 86A are satisfied, before denying the debit from the Credit Ledger."
Decision and Implications
Justice Raveekumar disposed of the writ petition with a clear two-fold direction:
-
The fourth respondent () shall forthwith unblock the Input Tax Credit lying in the petitioner's Credit Ledger.
-
It is open to the respondents to complete any pending assessment proceedings and, if necessary, initiate recovery proceedings in accordance with law.
The ruling reinforces that the under Rule 86A(3) is —the restriction does not survive beyond that period, regardless of any subsequent internal communications. The decision sends a strong message to tax authorities to act promptly within the statutory timeframe and not rely on prolonged ITC freezes as a substitute for .
