Bharat Electronics vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors
Facts
The petitioner, Bharat Electronics, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The matter had been listed for hearing after the decision in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-28 of 2020. The Supreme Court, in its order dated July 22, 2022, in those SLPs, directed the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) to open a common portal for filing or revising forms for availing Transitional Credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 for two months, from September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022. The Supreme Court also directed that aggrieved registered assessees could file or revise their forms irrespective of whether they had filed a writ petition or if their case was decided by the ITGRC. Concerned officers were given 90 days thereafter to verify claims and pass orders. Following the Supreme Court's directions, the counsel for the petitioner stated that the instant petition was not being pressed.
Held
The Supreme Court, in its order dated July 22, 2022, in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-28 of 2020, directed the GSTN to open a common portal for filing/revising TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms for two months (September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022). This opportunity was extended to any aggrieved registered assessee, regardless of prior writ petitions or ITGRC decisions. The concerned officers were given 90 days post-filing to verify claims and pass orders on merits. The High Court noted that these directions were to be meticulously complied with. In light of these Supreme Court directions, the counsel for the petitioner stated that the instant writ petition was not being pressed. Therefore, the High Court disposed of the petition in view of the petitioner not pressing it, implicitly allowing the petitioner to avail the remedy provided by the Supreme Court's order.
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. 7425-28 of 2020. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, through its counsel, did not press the writ petition, implicitly accepting the opportunity provided by the Supreme Court's directions to file or revise the relevant forms for transitional credit. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, Union of India and others, were represented by counsel. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondents, but their participation implies adherence to the Supreme Court's order and the subsequent compliance by the petitioner.
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 vi
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.