Akash Packtech PVT. LTD vs. Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax, Faridabad And Anr

Facts

The petitioner, Akash Packtech Private Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging an order or action by the Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax, Faridabad, and others. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The matter was initially listed for preliminary hearing on November 26, 2020, and was directed to be listed after the decision in certain Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court subsequently passed directions regarding the filing and processing of Transitional Credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms.

Held

The High Court noted that the Supreme Court, in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020, had issued specific directions on July 22, 2022. These directions mandate the Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTN) to open a common portal for filing or revising TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms for two months (September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022). Any aggrieved registered assessee can file or revise their forms, irrespective of whether they had filed a writ petition or if their case was decided by the ITGRC. The GSTN is to ensure no technical glitches occur. Concerned officers are granted 90 days thereafter to verify claims and pass orders on merits after providing an opportunity to the parties. Allowed transitional credit is to be reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger. The High Court stated that these directions must be meticulously complied with. In view of these Supreme Court directions, the counsel for the petitioner did not press the instant petition.

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 in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through its counsel, did not press the instant petition in light of the Supreme Court's directions. This implies an acceptance of the opportunity provided by the Supreme Court to file or revise the relevant forms for availing transitional credit. Respondents' contention: The respondents, represented by the Sr. Standing Counsel and DAG, Haryana, did not present any arguments against the petitioner's stance, as the petitioner chose not to press the petition. The Supreme Court's order, which the respondents are bound to comply with, directs the opening of a common portal for filing these forms and subsequent verification by concerned officers.