Robinson Sports vs. Union Of INDIA And Others
Facts
The petitioner, Robinson Sports, 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 parties brought to the Court's notice that the Supreme Court had passed specific directions on July 22, 2022, in the aforementioned SLP matters. These directions pertained to opening a common portal for filing forms for availing Transitional Credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2, allowing aggrieved registered assessees to file or revise forms, ensuring no technical glitches, and providing a timeframe for verification and passing of orders by concerned officers. Following these Supreme Court directions, the counsel for the petitioner stated that they did not press the instant petition.
Held
The Court noted that the Supreme Court, in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020, had issued specific directions on July 22, 2022. These directions mandated the Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTN) to open a common portal for filing transitional credit forms (TRAN-1 and TRAN-2) for two months (September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022). The Supreme Court also directed that any aggrieved registered assessee could file or revise their forms, irrespective of prior writ petitions or ITGRC decisions. GSTN was to ensure no technical glitches, and concerned officers were given 90 days thereafter to verify claims and pass orders on merits after affording an opportunity. The allowed transitional credit was to be reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger. The High Court observed that these directions had to be meticulously complied with by the concerned authorities. In view of these Supreme Court directions, the counsel for the petitioner stated that they did not press the instant petition. The High Court disposed of the petition accordingly.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Supreme Court's directions in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2022, concerning the opening of a common portal for filing transitional credit forms (TRAN-1 and TRAN-2) and subsequent verification, are to be complied with by the relevant authorities. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, did not press the writ petition in light of the Supreme Court's comprehensive directions. This implies acceptance of the Supreme Court's order as resolving the underlying issues. Respondents' contention: The respondents, Union of India and others, were represented, and the judgment notes that the Supreme Court heard counsel for different States and private parties. The Supreme Court's order itself indicates that it considered arguments before issuing directions. The respondents would be bound by these 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 issue th
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.