M/S Si Industries vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

CWP/14951/2020HC Punjab and HaryanaGSTCNR PHHC01075169202005 August 2022Bench: MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA,MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, M/s SI Industries, filed a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The matter was listed for preliminary hearing on November 26, 2020, and was 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 of transitional credit forms TRAN-1 and TRAN-2. Following these 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 Services Tax Network (GSTN) to open a common portal for filing or revising transitional credit forms TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 for two months (September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022). The Supreme Court also directed that aggrieved registered assessees could file or revise these forms, irrespective 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. The High Court observed that these directions had to be meticulously complied with by the authorities. Consequently, the counsel for the petitioner stated they did not press the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court's directions in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020, regarding the opening of a common portal for filing transitional credit forms TRAN-1 and TRAN-2, are to be complied with by the concerned authorities? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner did not press the writ petition in light of the Supreme Court's directions. Revenue's contention: The revenue implicitly accepted the Supreme Court's directions by not opposing the petitioner's stance and by the fact that the Supreme Court's order was brought to the High Court's notice.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-14951-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision:05.08.2022 M/s SI Industries ... Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN. Present: Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate, Mr. Rishab Singla, Advocate, Mr. Nitin Bansal, Advocate and Ms. Chinansha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.K. Joshi, Sr. Standing counsel for respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 5. Ms. Shruti Jain Goyal, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.4. ... TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. (ORAL). Matter had come up for preliminary hearing on 26.11.2020 and it had been directed to be listed after decision in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020. Counsel for the parties have brought to our notice that in the aforementioned matter the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed the following directions on 22.07.2022:- “Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following

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 peruse

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.

Create a free account Sign in

See plans and prices

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.