Bombay High Court
MOHAMMED AFZAL ISMAIL KALVA PROPRIETOR OF AASAN ENTERPRISESversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
A block on the Electronic Credit Ledger cannot be continued beyond the one‑year period prescribed under Rule 86A(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Summary
The petitioner, Mohammed Afzal Ismail Kalva, sought relief against the continued blocking of his Electronic Credit Ledger under the CGST Rules. The petition listed six serial entries, each subject to a one‑year blocking period prescribed by Rule 86A(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The Court examined the chart and held that for serial numbers 1‑4 the one‑year period had already elapsed, and for serial number 5 it expired on the day of the hearing, thus the blocks must be lifted immediately. No objection was raised regarding serial number 6, and the petitioner was allowed to apply later after the statutory period ends. Relying on prior decisions of the Bombay High Court, the judges directed the respondents to unblock the ledger entries as required. The petition was consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether a block on the Electronic Credit Ledger can be continued beyond the one‑year period prescribed in Rule 86A(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Legislation cited
- Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 — s. Rule 86A(3)
Subjects
- CGST
- Electronic Credit Ledger
- Rule 86A
- Blocking
- Unblocking
- GST litigation
- Writ petition
Judgment
ARJUN 904-wp 10213-26.doc
MACHHINDRA
KADAM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by
ARJUN MACHHINDRA
KADAM
Date: 2026.08.14 WRIT PETITION NO. 10213 OF 2026
17:58:08 +0530
Mohammed Afzal Ismail Kalva … Petitioner
Proprietor of Aasan Enterprises
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondent
__________________________
Mr. Prasannan Namboodiri a/w. Ms. Prathiba Namboodiri, Mr. Rishabh
Sinha and Mr. Nakshatra Mahaik for the Petitioner.
Smt. Madhubala Kajale ‘B’ Panel for the Respondent-State.
__________________________
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATED : 14th AUGUST, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard
learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. An attempt was made to
oppose the petition.
2. Our attention is invited to a chart which is at page 18 of the petition.
So far as serial Nos.1 to 4 are concerned, admittedly the period of one year
in terms of Rule 86A (3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 is over and therefore the
block cannot continue any further. Rule 86A is very clear. In such view of
the matter, so far as the blocking of the Electronic Credit Ledger at serial
Nos. 1 to 4 of the chart is concerned, the same stands unblocked.
Consequent action be taken by the respondents forthwith.
Amk 1/2
904-wp 10213-26.doc
3. So far as serial No.5 is concerned, the one year period is expiring
today. In such view of the matter, from tomorrow onwards, the Electronic
Credit Ledger, so far as serial No.5 of the chart is concerned, the same shall
stand unblocked. Consequent action be taken immediately.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the petition so far
as the serial No.6 of the chart is concerned presently. Liberty to apply after
the period in Rule 86A(3) is over is kept open.
5. In support of the view that we have taken, reliance can be placed on
the decisions of this Court in (i) Elitecon International Ltd. Vs. Union of
India & Ors. (2026) SCC OnLine Bom 2670, (ii) NZS Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Union of India & Ors., (2026) SCC OnLine Bom 4032 and (iii) Seya
Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 201 (Bom).
6. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Amk 2/2
Checking your session…