M/S Kuldip Enterprises, Faridabad vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Kuldip Enterprises, Faridabad, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondents are the Union of India and others. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history involves the petitioner filing a writ petition, and the respondents bringing to the court's notice 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 the filing of transitional credit forms.

Held

The High Court noted that the respondents' counsel brought to its attention the directions issued by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.32709-32710 of 2018. These directions mandated GSTN to open a common portal for filing transitional credit forms (TRAN-1 and TRAN-2) for two months (September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022). The Supreme Court also 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 ITGRC. Concerned officers were given 90 days thereafter to verify claims and pass orders. The ratio decidendi is that the Supreme Court's directions provide a mechanism for assessees to avail transitional credit, and the High Court acknowledged this procedural remedy. In light of the respondents' commitment to comply with these directions, the petitioner did not press their petition. The court disposed of the petition accordingly.

Key Issues

1. Whether 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) are to be complied with by the respondents, including opening a common portal for filing transitional credit forms (TRAN-1 and TRAN-2) and allowing aggrieved registered assessees to file or revise these forms. This issue turns on the interpretation and application of the Supreme Court's order. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, did not press the instant petition in light of the respondents' submission regarding meticulous compliance with the Supreme Court's directions. Respondents' contention: Counsel for the respondents submitted that there would be meticulous compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court. The respondents relied on the Supreme Court's order dated 22.07.2022.