M/S Stallion Metals Faridabad vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Stallion Metals, Faridabad, 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 certain Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, on July 22, 2022, passed specific directions regarding the filing and processing of Transitional Credit claims 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, and mandating GSTN to ensure no technical glitches. Concerned officers were given 90 days thereafter 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 GSTN to open a common portal for two months (September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022) for filing or revising forms. The Supreme Court also directed that aggrieved assessees could file or revise forms irrespective of whether they had filed a writ petition or if their case was decided by the ITGRC. Furthermore, the concerned officers were given 90 days post the filing period to verify claims and pass orders on merits after affording an opportunity to the parties. In light of these Supreme Court directions, which provided a clear procedure for addressing transitional credit claims, the counsel for the petitioner stated that they did not press the instant writ petition. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Supreme Court's directions dated July 22, 2022, in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020, provide an adequate mechanism for the petitioner to avail transitional credit, thereby rendering the present writ petition infructuous? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, did not press the writ petition, implicitly acknowledging that the Supreme Court's directions offered a path forward for their claim. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, Union of India and others, were represented, but no specific arguments were recorded in the judgment as they were not required to defend the petition due to the petitioner not pressing it. The judgment primarily focuses on the Supreme Court's order.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned as being discussed or forming the basis of the decision, other than the general context of transitional credit under GST law.
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 havin
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.