Andhra Pradesh High Court

WP/20384/2024 of M/S SALEEM TRADERS Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (STATE TAX) on 8 September 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 20384 OF 2024 Between: 1. M/S SALEEM TRADERS, Represented by the

APHC010377322024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

WRIT PETITION NO: 20384 OF 2024

Between:

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

1. M/S SALEEM TRADERS, Represented by the Proprietor- Sri Shaik Noor Mohammad, Door No- 18/500, Lakshmi Towers, OPP.Triveni Cine Complex Anantapuram, Anantapuram District, Andhra Pradesh, PIN-515001. ...Petitioner AND

1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STATE TAX, Admn. O/o Chief Commissioner of State Tax, A.P. D.No. 12-468-4, Vijaya Elite Apartments, Vijayawad-Chennaiah High Way-16 Adjacent to Service Road, Kunchanpalli, Tadapalli, Guntur District. PIN- 522501.

2. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the Secretary to Government of A.P. Revenue (CT) Department, Government of A.P. Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Mangalagiri Mandal Guntur (District), AP, PIN-522 503

3. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Anantapur Range, Anantapur. A.P

4. Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to Ministry of Finance, Revenue Department, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi Pin 110001. Respondent NO.3 and 4 are impleaded as per c.o.dt.22.01.2025 vide I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No.20384 of 2024. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: J.N VENKATA SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: SANTHI CHANDRA (Sr. Standing Counsel for CBIC) Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

The Court made the following ORDER: (Per NJS,J)

Heard Mr.G.Vekateswarulu, learned arguing counsel, who appeared through online.

Also heard Mr.S.A.V.Saikumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.

Petitioner, a proprietary firm is carrying on business of trading in iron and steel scrap. It is registered as a dealer under the provisions of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and filing monthly returns. Vide communication dated 21.03.2024, the petitioner’s Electronic Credit Ledger was blocked. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed on various grounds, including that the unilateral blocking of the same is in violation of principles of natural justice, that said action of blocking is drastic and in the absence of any material to show that the petitioner has deliberately availed/utilized the ITC fraudulently or without eligibility, no such action, which has serious affect on the petitioner’s business, would have been resorted to.

Learned counsel for the petitioner though sought to impress upon the Court by making elaborate submissions, with reference to contentions raised in the Writ Petition, the same need not be examined in detail.

As noted above, the Electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioner was blocked on 21.03.2024. Rule 86(A) of Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 deals with conditions of use of amount for any Electronic Credit Ledger and empowers the Commissioner or an officer authorized, in this behalf, not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner, having reasons to believe that credit of input tax available in the electronic credit ledger has been fraudulently availed or ineligible, in the circumstances set out in the sub rule not to allow debit of an amount equivalent to such credit in Electronic Credit Ledger for discharge of any liability under Section 49 or for claim of any refund of any unutilized amount, by recording reasons. Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 86A stipulates that such restriction shall cease to have effect after expiry of period of one year from the date of imposing such restriction. Thus, in view of the statutory prescription and operation of law, blocking of petitioner’s Electronic Credit Ledger vide communication dated 21.03.2024, impugned in the writ petition, ceased to operate. The said position in law is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

In the above stated position of the case, the cause for adjudication does not survive and the Writ Petition has practically rendered infructuous.

Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out remedies available in law for redressal of grievance, if any. No costs.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

NINALA JAYASURYA,J

T.C.D.SEKHAR,J Date:09.09.2026 Ssv

Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

WRIT PETITION NO: 20384 OF 2024 Date:09.09.2026 Ssv

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead