Sourav Tools And Forgings vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Sourav Tools & Forgings, Jalandhar, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The respondents are the Union of India and others. The case concerns the availing of transitional credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. The Supreme Court, in SLP (C) No.32709-32710 of 2018, issued directions regarding the opening of a common portal for filing or revising these forms for a period of two months, from September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022. These directions were to allow aggrieved registered assessees to file or revise their forms, irrespective of prior writ petitions or decisions by the ITGRC. The Supreme Court also mandated that concerned officers verify claims within 90 days and pass orders on merits after affording an opportunity to the parties.

Held

The Court noted that the counsel for the respondents had brought to its notice 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 concerned forms for availing Transitional Credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 for two months (September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022). Aggrieved registered assessees were directed to file or revise their forms, irrespective of whether they had filed a writ petition or if their case was decided by the ITGRC. GSTN was to ensure no technical glitches, and concerned officers were given 90 days thereafter to verify claims and pass orders on merits after affording an opportunity. The Court was informed that there would be meticulous compliance with these directions. In light of this stand by the respondents, the counsel for the petitioner(s) did not press the instant petition. The petition was disposed of in terms of the Supreme Court's directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Union of India versus Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. (SLP (C) No.32709-32710 of 2018) are to be complied with by the respondents. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner's counsel, in light of the respondents' undertaking to comply with the Supreme Court's directions, did not press the instant petition. Respondents' contention: Counsel for the respondents stated that there would be meticulous compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court.