M/S Inabata INDIA PVT LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Inabata India Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The matter was listed for preliminary hearing on November 26, 2020, and directed to be listed after the decision in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020. The parties brought to the court's notice that the Supreme Court had passed specific directions on July 22, 2022, concerning the filing of transitional credit forms TRAN-1 and TRAN-2. Following these directions, the counsel for the petitioner stated that they did not press the instant petition.
Held
The High Court noted that the Supreme Court, in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020, had issued specific directions on July 22, 2022. These directions mandated the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) to open a common portal for filing transitional credit forms TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 for a period of 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 was decided by the ITGRC. The concerned officers were given 90 days thereafter to verify claims and pass orders on merits. 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 writ petition. The court disposed of the petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Supreme Court's directions dated 22.07.2022 in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020 regarding the opening of the GSTN portal for filing transitional credit forms TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 should be complied with by the concerned authorities. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, did not press the writ petition in light of the Supreme Court's directions. This implies 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, were represented, but their specific arguments or contentions are not recorded in the judgment as the petitioner did not press the petition. The judgment notes that the Supreme Court's directions were issued after hearing counsel for different States and private parties.
Sections Cited
None
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Permission to file Special Leave Petition (s) is allowed.
Delay condoned.
Having heard learned Additional Solicitor General, learned counsel appearing for different States and learned counsel appearing for different private parties and having perused the record, we are of the view that it
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.