Mrm Autos Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Another

Facts

The petitioner, MRM Autos Private Limited, filed a writ petition (CWP-8439-2020) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. 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 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 assessees to file or revise forms irrespective of prior writ petitions or ITGRC decisions, ensuring no technical glitches, and providing a 90-day period for verification and order passing by concerned officers. Following these Supreme Court directions, the counsel for the petitioner stated that they did not press the instant petition.

Held

The High Court held that in view of the specific directions issued by the Supreme Court on July 22, 2022, in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020, the present writ petition filed by MRM Autos Private Limited was no longer pressed by the petitioner. The Supreme Court's order directed 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). It also mandated 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. The ratio decidendi is that when a higher court provides a specific mechanism to address the grievance raised in a writ petition, and the petitioner chooses not to press the petition in light of that mechanism, the writ petition should be disposed of accordingly. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court's directions dated 22.07.2022 in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020 provide a mechanism for the petitioner to avail transitional credit, thereby rendering the present writ petition infructuous. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, acknowledged the Supreme Court's order and indicated that they did not wish to press the writ petition in light of the directions issued. This implies an acceptance that the Supreme Court's directions offer a suitable remedy. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, Union of India and another, were represented by Senior Standing Counsel. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondents in the judgment, other than their representation. However, the Supreme Court's directions, which are binding on the revenue authorities, address the issue of transitional credit.