Gsr Eco Bricks Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Standing Counsel for CBIC that the Electronic Credit Ledger of the petitioner had been updated with the credit amount of Rs. 1,07,81,439/- on October 1, 2021, vide entry No.AA371217030366B. This update was a result of the petitioner approaching the Nodal Officer as directed by an interim order of the Court dated September 8, 2020. The Standing Counsel submitted that since the purpose of the Writ Petition had been achieved, the petition could be closed. The counsel for the petitioner reported no objection to this course of action, requesting only that their right to approach the Court by filing a separate Writ Petition in the future, if necessity arises, be preserved. The Court recorded this submission and granted permission, consequently closing the Writ Petition. No decision was made on the merits of the original claim, as the matter was resolved procedurally.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to declare the respondents' action of not granting CENVAT credit of Rs. 1,07,81,439/- available as on June 30, 2017, despite filing TRAN-1 which showed as 'processed with error' on the GST portal, as illegal. The petitioner requested the court to direct the respondents to reopen the portal for re-filing TRAN-1 or to accept a manual TRAN-1 form. During the hearing, the Standing Counsel for CBIC submitted a letter from the Deputy Commissioner, Nellore CGST Division, dated December 21, 2022, stating that the taxpayer's Electronic Credit Ledger had been updated with the credit amount of Rs. 1,07,81,439/- on October 1, 2021. The Standing Counsel argued that the purpose of the writ petition had been achieved.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in not granting CENVAT credit of Rs. 1,07,81,439/- to the petitioner, despite the petitioner filing TRAN-1 which was processed with an error, is illegal, and consequently, whether the petitioner is entitled to relief by way of reopening the portal or accepting a manual TRAN-1 form? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents' inaction in not granting the CENVAT credit, despite the TRAN-1 form being filed and showing an error, was illegal and sought a direction for rectification. The petitioner relied on the fact that the credit was available as on June 30, 2017. Revenue's contention: The respondents, through the Standing Counsel for CBIC, submitted that the issue had been resolved as the Electronic Credit Ledger of the taxpayer was updated with the credit amount of Rs. 1,07,81,439/- on October 1, 2021, pursuant to the taxpayer approaching the Nodal Officer as directed by an interim order of the Court. Therefore, the purpose of the writ petition was achieved.