M/S Happy Trading Co. vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Happy Trading Co., Patiala, 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. On July 22, 2022, the Supreme Court passed specific directions regarding the filing of forms for availing transitional credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2. These directions included opening a 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 granting officers 90 days to verify claims and pass orders. The Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petitions with these directions. In light of these Supreme Court directions, the counsel for the petitioner stated that the instant petition was not pressed.

Held

The Court noted that the Supreme Court, in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020, had issued specific directions on July 22, 2022, concerning the availing of transitional credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms. These directions mandated the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) to open a common portal for filing or revising these forms for a period of two months (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 had been decided by the Information Technology Grievance Redressal Committee (ITGRC). The concerned officers were given 90 days thereafter to verify the claims and pass orders on merits after affording an opportunity to the parties. In view of these comprehensive directions from the Supreme Court, which were to be meticulously complied with by the authorities, the counsel for the petitioner stated that the instant petition was not pressed. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to avail transitional credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms, considering the directions issued by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through its counsel, did not press the writ petition, implicitly accepting the directions issued by the Supreme Court as a resolution mechanism for availing transitional credit. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's order to provide an opportunity for filing or revising TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms. Respondents' contention: The respondents, Union of India and others, represented by counsel, were present. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents, but their presence indicates their engagement with the proceedings. The Supreme Court's directions, which the respondents are bound to comply with, provide a framework for addressing transitional credit claims.