Mauria Udyog LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Mauria Udyog Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking directions to the respondents (Union of India & Ors.) to comply with a previous High Court order dated 31.10.2018 and to allow credit of ₹59,13,946/- along with interest. The earlier writ petition had directed the respondents to take on record and process the petitioner's originally filed revised return within four weeks. While the revised return was taken on record, the credit was not provided. The respondents stated that the petitioner filed a revised TRAN-1 on 08.10.2022 claiming ₹57,13,829/-, and this would be processed within ninety days from 01.12.2022 to 28.02.2023, pursuant to Supreme Court orders allowing portal access for revised forms.

Held

The Court held that the first prayer, seeking compliance with the order dated 31.10.2018, could not be granted as an order once passed is required to be complied with without further directions. The Court noted that the respondents had resolved the technical problem by opening the portal for revised forms, including TRAN-1, and the petitioner's revised TRAN-1 would be processed. Regarding the claim for interest, the Court found no provision for payment of interest, as the petitioner's claim was based on the premise of non-compliance with the earlier order. However, the Court stated that if the credit was not provided by 28.02.2022, the petitioner would be entitled to interest at 12% per annum for any further delay. The Court refrained from imposing exemplary costs, considering the recent rollout of GST and the respondents' efforts to resolve implementation issues, despite opining that the respondents should have approached the court rather than disregarding the earlier order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents have complied with the order dated 31.10.2018 passed by this Court in WP[C] 5224/2018, directing them to take on record and process the petitioner's revised return. The petitioner argued that the credit claimed was not provided, thus indicating non-compliance. The respondents contended that the revised TRAN-1 would be processed within a stipulated period, implying that the process of compliance was underway. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed credit. The petitioner premised this claim on the alleged non-compliance with the earlier court order. The respondents argued that there is no provision for payment of interest in this context.