M/S. IBA ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In W.P No.3228/2025, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners was blocked by the impugned orders at Annexure - A1 to A 11 dtd. 6/12/2024, 6/12/2024, 21/11/2024, 21/11/2024, 15/10/2024, 28/8/2024, 30/1/2025, 30/1/2025, 30/1/2025, 30/1/2025 and 30/1/2025 respectively in W.P No.3228/2025 and impugned orders at Annexure - A1 to A 16 dtd. 16/5/2024, 16/5/2024, 18/5/2024, 28/8/2024, 28/8/2024, 28/8/2024, 28/8/2024, 28/8/2024, 15/10/2024, 21/11/2024, 21/11/2024, 6/12/2024, 6/12/2024, 28/8/2024, 6/12/2024 and 16/5/2024 respectively in W.P No.3376/2025, by invoking Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short 'the CGST Rules') which hinders the Petitioners from utilizing the Input Tax Credit. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the material on record in order to point out that before passing the impugned orders, pre-decisional hearing was not provided to the petitioners nor does the impugned orders contain any reason to believe as to why it was necessary to block the Electronic Credit Ledger and in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of K-9-Enterprises Vs. State of Karnataka in W.A.No.100425/2023 and connected matters dtd. 2/4/2024, the impugned orders deserves to be quashed.