M/S U-Turn Engg. Works, Faridabad vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s U-Turn Engg. Works, Faridabad, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The matter was listed for preliminary hearing and directed to be listed after the decision in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020. Counsel for the parties brought to the Court's notice that the Supreme Court had passed specific directions in the aforementioned SLP. These directions pertained to opening a common portal for filing forms for availing transitional credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2, allowing aggrieved registered assessees to file or revise forms, and directing GSTN to ensure no technical glitches. The Supreme Court also mandated that concerned officers verify claims and pass orders within 90 days, and that allowed transitional credit be reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger.

Held

The High Court noted that the Supreme Court, in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020, had issued specific directions. These directions included opening a common portal for filing transitional credit forms (TRAN-1 and TRAN-2) for a period of 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 prior writ petitions or decisions by the ITGRC. GSTN was tasked with ensuring no technical glitches during this period. Concerned officers were given 90 days thereafter to verify claims and pass orders on merits after affording an opportunity to the parties. The allowed transitional credit was to be reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger. The High Court stated that these directions had to be meticulously complied with by the authorities. In view of these Supreme Court directions, the counsel for the petitioner stated that they did not press the instant petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the directions issued by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2022, concerning the opening of a common portal for filing transitional credit forms (TRAN-1 and TRAN-2) and the subsequent verification and credit of such claims, are to be complied with by the relevant authorities. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, did not press the instant petition in light of the Supreme Court's directions. This implies an acceptance of the Supreme Court's order as a resolution or a path forward for their grievance. Respondents' contention: The respondents, Union of India and others, represented by their respective counsel, brought the Supreme Court's order to the High Court's attention. Their participation indicates an acknowledgment and likely a willingness to abide by the Supreme Court's directives.