Rajiv Trading Co., Faridabad vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Rajiv Trading Co., Faridabad, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging an order or action by the revenue authorities concerning Goods and Services Tax (GST). The matter was listed for preliminary hearing on November 26, 2020, 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. Following these directions, the counsel for the petitioner stated that they did not press the instant petition.

Held

The Supreme Court, in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020, issued directions on July 22, 2022. These directions mandated GSTN to open a common portal for filing or revising forms for availing Transitional Credit (TRAN-1 and TRAN-2) for two months, from September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022. It was clarified that any aggrieved registered assessee could file or revise their forms, irrespective of prior writ petitions or decisions by the ITGRC. GSTN was directed to ensure no technical glitches occurred. Concerned officers were granted 90 days thereafter to verify claims and pass orders on merits after affording reasonable opportunity. Subsequently, allowed Transitional Credit was to be reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger. The Supreme Court also suggested that the GST Council may issue guidelines for scrutinizing claims. In view of these Supreme Court directions, which were to be meticulously complied with by the authorities, the petitioner stated they did not press their writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) should be directed to open a common portal for filing forms for availing Transitional Credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2, and if so, for what period? 2. Whether aggrieved registered assessees should be permitted to file or revise their forms irrespective of whether they filed a writ petition or their case was decided by the Information Technology Grievance Redressal Committee (ITGRC)? 3. Whether GSTN should ensure there are no technical glitches during the specified period for filing/revising forms? 4. Whether concerned officers should be given a specific period to verify claims and pass orders on merits after granting an opportunity to the parties? 5. Whether allowed Transitional Credit should be reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger thereafter? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner did not press the petition in light of the Supreme Court's directions. Revenue's Argument: The revenue did not present any arguments as the petitioner withdrew their plea based on the Supreme Court's order.