M/S Haryana Electricals vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Haryana Electricals, filed a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The petition was listed for preliminary hearing on November 26, 2020, and was adjourned pending the decision in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, on July 22, 2022, passed directions concerning the filing and processing of Transitional Credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms. 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 providing officers 90 days to verify claims and pass orders. The petitioner's counsel, in light of these Supreme Court directions, did not press the instant petition.
Held
The Court noted that the Supreme Court, in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020, had issued comprehensive directions on July 22, 2022, concerning the availing of transitional credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms. These directions mandated the opening of a common portal for two months (September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022) for filing or revising forms, irrespective of prior writ petitions or ITGRC decisions. The Supreme Court also directed GSTN to ensure no technical glitches and gave concerned officers 90 days to verify claims and pass orders. The High Court observed that these directions were 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. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Supreme Court's directions in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020, issued on July 22, 2022, provide a complete and satisfactory remedy to the petitioner regarding the availing of transitional credit under the Goods and Services Tax regime, thereby rendering the present writ petition infructuous. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, did not press the petition, implicitly accepting that the Supreme Court's directions offered a sufficient avenue for relief. No specific arguments were made by the petitioner's counsel regarding the merits of their claim or the validity of any prior action by the revenue authorities. Respondents' contention: The respondents, Union of India and others, did not present any arguments as the petitioner withdrew their petition. Their role was to respond to the writ petition, which became unnecessary following the petitioner's submission.
Sections Cited
None explicitly discussed or relied upon in the judgment text provided, as the decision was based on Supreme Court directions.
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 issue the following
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.