M/S Daga Trading Company PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Daga Trading Company Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The matter was listed after a decision in certain Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, on July 22, 2022, issued directions regarding 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 assessees to file or revise forms irrespective of prior writ petitions or ITGRC decisions, ensuring no technical glitches, and providing 90 days for verification and order passing by concerned officers. The petitioner's counsel, in light of these Supreme Court directions, chose not to 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, concerning the availing of transitional credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms. These directions mandated the Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTN) to open a common portal for filing and 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, regardless of whether they had filed a writ petition or if their case was decided by the ITGRC. The concerned officers were given 90 days thereafter to verify claims and pass orders. In light of these Supreme Court directions, which provided a clear pathway for taxpayers to claim transitional credit, the counsel for the petitioner stated that they did not press the instant writ petition. The High Court acknowledged and accepted this position.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to avail transitional credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms, considering the Supreme Court's directions dated 22.07.2022 in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, through its counsel, did not press the writ petition in view of the comprehensive directions issued by the Supreme Court, which provided a mechanism for availing transitional credit. The petitioner implicitly accepted the Supreme Court's order as a resolution to their grievance. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, Union of India and others, were represented and were bound by the Supreme Court's order. Their counsel appeared, and the matter proceeded based on the Supreme Court's directions. No specific argument was recorded against the petitioner pressing their petition, as the Supreme Court's order addressed the core issue.