M/S Kpc Flexi Tubes PVT. LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Others
Facts
The petitioner, M/s KPC Flexi Tubes Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The matter was listed for preliminary hearing and directed to be listed after the decision in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, on July 22, 2022, issued directions concerning the filing of forms for availing Transitional Credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2. These directions mandated GSTN to open a common portal for two months, from September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022. Aggrieved registered assessees were permitted to file or revise forms, irrespective of prior writ petitions or decisions by the ITGRC. Concerned officers were given 90 days thereafter to verify claims and pass orders. Following these Supreme Court directions, the counsel for the petitioner stated that the instant petition was not pressed.
Held
The Court held that the directions issued by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020 were to be meticulously complied with by the concerned authorities. These directions provided a specific window and procedure for registered assessees to file or revise forms for availing transitional credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2. The Supreme Court's order allowed for the opening of a common portal by GSTN from September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022, for this purpose. It also stipulated a period for verification of claims and passing of orders by the concerned officers. In view of these overarching directions from the apex court, the counsel for the petitioner stated that the instant writ petition was not pressed. The Court acknowledged this and disposed of the petition accordingly. The ratio decidendi is that where the Supreme Court provides a specific mechanism to address a grievance, a High Court writ petition concerning that grievance should be disposed of in line with the Supreme Court's directions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to avail transitional credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms, considering the Supreme Court's directions in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through its counsel, did not press the writ petition in light of the Supreme Court's comprehensive directions that provided a mechanism for availing transitional credit. The Supreme Court's order effectively addressed the grievance that would have been adjudicated in the writ petition. Respondents' contention: The respondents, Union of India and others, along with the State of Haryana, were represented. Their stance was implicitly that the Supreme Court's directions would govern the matter, and the petitioner's grievance could be resolved through the prescribed procedure. No specific argument was recorded against the petitioner's right to avail the benefit of the Supreme Court's order.
Sections Cited
TRAN-1, TRAN-2
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 is just and proper to is
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.