M/S Vee Kay Ply Store vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Vee Kay Ply Store, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and 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 parties brought to the Court's notice that the Supreme Court had passed specific directions on July 22, 2022, concerning the filing and processing of transitional credit claims through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms. These directions involved opening a common portal for a specified period, allowing aggrieved assessees to file or revise forms irrespective of prior writ petitions or ITGRC decisions, and mandating verification and order passing by concerned officers within a stipulated timeframe. Following these Supreme Court directions, the counsel for the petitioner stated that the instant petition was not pressed.

Held

The High Court held that the directions issued by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020 on July 22, 2022, were to be meticulously complied with by the concerned authorities. These directions included opening a common portal for filing/revising TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms for two months (September 1 to October 31, 2022), allowing any aggrieved registered assessee to file or revise forms irrespective of prior writ petitions or ITGRC decisions, ensuring no technical glitches, and providing 90 days thereafter for officers to verify claims and pass orders on merits after granting an opportunity. The Court noted that in view of these Supreme Court directions, the counsel for the petitioner did not press the instant petition. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of in light of the Supreme Court's order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the directions issued by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020 on July 22, 2022, render the present writ petition infructuous? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner, through their counsel, indicated that the Supreme Court's order had addressed the core issues and provided a mechanism for relief, thus not pressing the writ petition. Respondents' Argument: The respondents, Union of India and others, represented by their counsel, brought the Supreme Court's order to the High Court's attention. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents beyond their role in presenting the Supreme Court's directions.