M/S Pensla Impex vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Pensla Impex, Jalandhar, 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 concerned the opening of a common portal by GSTN for filing or revising TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms for availing transitional credit for a period of two months. The Supreme Court also directed concerned officers to verify claims and pass orders on merits. In light of the respondents' submission regarding compliance with these Supreme Court directions, 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 included opening a common portal by GSTN for filing or revising TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms for transitional credit from September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022. The Supreme Court also directed that aggrieved registered assessees could file or revise forms irrespective of prior writ petitions or ITGRC decisions. Furthermore, concerned officers were given 90 days to verify claims and pass orders on merits after providing an opportunity to the parties. In light of the respondents' submission that there would be meticulous compliance with these Supreme Court directions, the petitioner chose not to press their writ petition. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's writ petition should be disposed of in light of the Supreme Court's directions in Union of India and another versus Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. and another (SLP (C) No. 32709-32710 of 2018)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, did not press the instant petition, implying acceptance of the Supreme Court's directions and the respondents' commitment to comply with them. Respondents' contention: The respondents submitted that there would be meticulous compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned SLP. These directions mandated GSTN to open a common portal for filing/revising TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms for transitional credit, followed by verification and adjudication of claims by concerned officers.