M/S Dua Industries Faridabad vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Held

The High Court disposed of all the writ petitions in terms of the decision rendered in CWP No.33742 of 2019, decided on January 28, 2020. While the specific details of the decision in CWP No.33742 of 2019 are not provided in this excerpt, the court's action indicates that the present petitions were resolved based on that prior ruling. The operative directions would have been to either allow, dismiss, or remand the cases as per the precedent. The judgment explicitly states that the petitions are disposed of in terms of the earlier decision, implying that the issues raised regarding Rule 117 and the TRAN-01 form were addressed by that precedent. Any pending applications were also disposed of.

Facts

These 24 writ petitions, including CWP No.753 of 2020, were filed by various companies against the Union of India and others. The petitioners sought a writ in the nature of Certiorari to declare Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017, and HGST Rules, 2017, as ultra vires Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017. They also prayed for directions to the respondents to open the portal for them to upload the TRAN-01 form. The petitions were heard together. The respondents, including the Union of India and the State of Haryana, accepted notice. The counsel for the parties agreed that the issue was similar to that in CWP No.33742 of 2019, decided on the same date.

Key Issues

1. Whether Rule 117 of the CGST Rules, 2017, and HGST Rules, 2017, are ultra vires Section 140 of the CGST Act, 2017, concerning the eligibility and procedure for claiming transitional credit through Form TRAN-01? The petitioners argued that Rule 117 imposes restrictions not contemplated by Section 140 of the CGST Act, thereby rendering the Rule ultra vires. They contended that the inability to upload Form TRAN-01 due to portal issues or other technical glitches should not prejudice their right to claim transitional credit as provided under Section 140. They sought directions to open the portal to allow them to file the form. The respondents, Union of India and State of Haryana, accepted notice. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondents, but their acceptance of notice implies a defense against the petitioners' claims.