M/S Nippon Engineering Corporation Faridabad vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Nippon Engineering Corporation, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The respondents, Union of India and others, brought to the Court's notice the directions issued by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.32709-32710 of 2018, titled Union of India and another versus Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. and another, dated 22.07.2022. These directions pertained to opening the GSTN portal for filing or revising Transitional Credit forms (TRAN-1 and TRAN-2) for a period of two months, allowing aggrieved registered assessees to file or revise forms irrespective of prior writ petitions or ITGRC decisions. The respondents assured meticulous compliance with these Supreme Court directions. In light of this assurance, the petitioner did not press the instant petition.

Held

The Court noted the directions issued by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.32709-32710 of 2018. These directions mandated the Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTN) to open a common portal for filing or revising Transitional Credit forms (TRAN-1 and TRAN-2) for two months, from September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022. The Supreme Court further directed that any aggrieved registered assessee could file or revise their forms, irrespective of whether they had filed a writ petition or if their case was decided by the Information Technology Grievance Redressal Committee (ITGRC). The concerned officers were given 90 days thereafter to verify claims and pass orders on merits after granting an opportunity to the parties. The allowed transitional credit was to be reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger. In light of the respondents' assurance of meticulous compliance with these Supreme Court directions, the petitioner did not press the instant writ petition. Consequently, the petition was disposed of.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to avail transitional credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms, considering the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Union of India and another versus Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. and another (SLP (C) No.32709-32710 of 2018). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner, by not pressing the petition, implicitly relies on the Supreme Court's directions to seek relief. The petitioner's stance suggests an acceptance of the opportunity provided by the Supreme Court's order to file or revise the relevant forms. Revenue's Argument: The respondents (Union of India and others) brought the Supreme Court's directions to the Court's notice and assured meticulous compliance. This indicates the revenue's position that the Supreme Court's order provides a mechanism for assessees to address issues related to transitional credit, and they are prepared to abide by these directions.