M/S Precision Tools And Components Faridabad vs. Union Of INDIA And Others
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Precision Tools & Components, Faridabad, 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. The Supreme Court, in its order dated July 22, 2022, in the aforementioned SLPs, issued directions concerning the filing and verification of transitional credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms. These directions included opening the common portal for two months, allowing aggrieved registered assessees to file or revise forms irrespective of prior writ petitions or ITGRC decisions, ensuring no technical glitches, and providing officers 90 days to verify claims and pass orders. Following the Supreme Court's order, the counsel for the petitioner stated that the instant petition was not pressed.
Held
The Court noted that the Supreme Court, in its order dated July 22, 2022, in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020, had issued comprehensive directions for the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) and concerned officers regarding the filing and verification of transitional credit claims through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms. These directions mandated the opening of the common portal for two months, allowing assessees to file or revise forms, ensuring technical stability, and providing a timeframe for verification and order passing. The High Court acknowledged that these directions were to be meticulously complied with by the authorities. Consequently, the counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that the instant petition was not being pressed. The Court, therefore, disposed of the petition in view of the Supreme Court's order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Supreme Court's directions in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020, concerning the filing and processing of transitional credit claims through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2, are to be complied with by the relevant authorities. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, indicated that the writ petition was not pressed in light of the Supreme Court's order. No specific arguments were made by the petitioner in this court regarding the interpretation or application of any GST provisions. Respondents' contention: The respondents, Union of India and others, and the State of Haryana, were represented. Their counsel brought the Supreme Court's order to the notice of the High Court. No specific arguments were made by the respondents in this court, as the matter was being disposed of based on the Supreme Court's directions.
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 issu
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.