M/S Panasonic Life Solutions INDIA PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The respondents are the Union of India and others. The specific tax period and amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history involves the petitioner filing a writ petition challenging an action or order by the revenue authorities, the details of which are not specified. The present judgment arises from the respondents bringing to the court's notice directions issued by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.32709-32710 of 2018.

Held

The High Court noted that the respondents' counsel had brought to its attention the directions issued by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.32709-32710 of 2018. These directions mandated 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 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 had been decided by the ITGRC. The concerned officers were given 90 days thereafter to verify claims and pass orders. In light of the respondents' undertaking to meticulously comply with these directions, the petitioner did not press the instant petition. The High Court disposed of the petition accordingly. The ratio decidendi is that where the revenue undertakes to comply with Supreme Court directions that provide a remedy to the assessee, the assessee may withdraw their High Court petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the directions issued by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.32709-32710 of 2018, concerning the opening of a common portal for filing/revising Transitional Credit forms (TRAN-1 and TRAN-2), are to be complied with by the respondents. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner did not press the instant petition in light of the respondents' undertaking to comply with the Supreme Court's directions. Respondents' contention: The respondents' counsel brought to the court's notice the Supreme Court's directions and stated that there would be meticulous compliance of the same. The respondents relied on the order of the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.32709-32710 of 2018.