M/S.Pokarna Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 Others

Held

The High Court noted that the issue raised by the petitioners had been decided by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. The Supreme Court had directed the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) to open a common portal for filing concerned forms for availing Transitional Credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 for two months, from September 7, 2022, to October 31, 2022, which was subsequently extended to November 30, 2022. The Court found that the parties were in agreement that these directions sufficiently covered the petitioners' interests, and therefore, no grievance subsisted. Consequently, the writ petitions were disposed of in light of the Supreme Court's order.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s. Pokarna Limited and Anu Advance Composite Products Pvt. Ltd., filed writ petitions seeking directions to the respondents to accept their revised or fresh Form GST TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 for availing transitional credit. The petitioners contended that the time limits prescribed in Rule 117(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, and corresponding Telangana rules, were arbitrary and illegal. They sought credit for specific amounts, INR 27,35,391/- in one petition. The procedural history involves repeated representations and the respondents' inaction in allowing the filing of the forms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the time limit for filing Form GST TRAN-1, as prescribed by Rule 117(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, and Rule 117(1) of the Telangana Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, and consequential notifications, is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of constitutional provisions (Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265, and 300A) and Sections 140, 164, and 174(2)(c) of the CGST Act and corresponding Telangana Act? Petitioner's arguments: The time limits were arbitrary and illegal. They sought directions to accept their TRAN-1 forms and credit the disputed amounts. Revenue's arguments: The respondents, through their counsel, submitted that the issue raised in the writ petitions had been decided by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. They agreed that the Supreme Court's directions sufficiently covered the petitioners' interests.