M/S Naveen Oil Nd Gas Co Faridabad vs. Union Of INDIA Nd Ors
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Naveen Oil & Gas Company, Faridabad, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The petition concerned the availing of transitional credit under GST. The Supreme Court, in SLP(C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020, passed an order on July 22, 2022, directing the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) to open a common portal for filing or revising TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms for availing transitional credit. This portal was to be open from September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022. The Supreme Court's order also stipulated a timeline for verification of claims and passing of orders by concerned officers. Following the Supreme Court's directions, the counsel for the petitioner stated that the instant petition was not being pressed.
Held
The High Court noted the directions issued by the Supreme Court on July 22, 2022, in SLP(C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020. These directions mandated GSTN to open a common portal for filing or revising TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms for availing transitional credit between September 1, 2022, and October 31, 2022. The Supreme Court also directed concerned officers to verify claims and pass orders within 90 days thereafter. In light of these Supreme Court directions, the counsel for the petitioner stated that the instant writ petition was not being pressed. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the petition, acknowledging that the Supreme Court's order provided a mechanism for addressing the petitioner's grievance regarding transitional credit. No specific issue was decided by the High Court on merits, as the petition was withdrawn.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to avail transitional credit through the filing or revision of TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms, considering the Supreme Court's directions in SLP(C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through its counsel, did not press the petition, implying acceptance of the Supreme Court's directions as a resolution to their grievance or as an alternative remedy. No specific arguments were made by the petitioner regarding the interpretation of any specific provision of the GST Act or Rules. Respondents' contention: The respondents, Union of India and others, and the State of Haryana, were represented. Their primary role was to abide by the Supreme Court's order. No specific arguments were recorded from the respondents' side as the petitioner chose not to press the petition.
Sections Cited
TRAN-1, TRAN-2
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Permission to file Special Leave Petition (s) is allowed. Delay condoned. Having heard learned Additional Solicitor General, learned counsel appearing for different States and learned counsel appearing for different private parties and having perused the record, we are of the view that it is just and proper to issue the following directions in these cases:
Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTN) is directe
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.