M/S J.M.D Engineers Faridabad vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, M/s J.M.D. Engineers, 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 core of the dispute, though not explicitly detailed in terms of tax periods or specific amounts, revolves around the petitioner's claim for transitional credit under GST. The respondents, through their counsel, brought to the Court's attention the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.32709-32710 of 2018, which provided a mechanism for assessees to file or revise forms for availing transitional credit. Following this, the petitioner's counsel stated that they did not press the instant petition.

Held

The Court noted that the respondents' counsel had brought to its attention the directions issued by the Hon'ble 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 or revising forms for availing transitional credit (TRAN-1 and TRAN-2) for a period of two months (September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022). The Supreme Court further directed that aggrieved registered assessees could file or revise their forms irrespective of prior writ petitions or decisions by the ITGRC. Concerned officers were given 90 days thereafter to verify claims and pass orders, with allowed credit to be reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger. In light of the respondents' assurance of meticulous compliance with these Supreme Court directions, the petitioner's counsel stated that they did not press the instant petition. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.32709-32710 of 2018, concerning the opening of a common portal for filing transitional credit forms (TRAN-1 and TRAN-2), are to be complied with by the respondents. The petitioner, by not pressing the petition, implicitly accepts the Supreme Court's directions as a resolution. The respondents, through their counsel, indicated meticulous compliance with these directions. The Supreme Court's order itself addresses the circumstances leading to the need for such directions, implying a recognition of the issues faced by assessees in availing transitional credit. The core issue is the implementation of the Supreme Court's directive to provide a window for filing/revising transitional credit claims.