M/S Naman Industries Faridabad vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Naman Industries, Faridabad, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The matter was listed for preliminary hearing and directed to be listed after the decision in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020. Counsel for the parties informed the Court that the Supreme Court had passed directions on July 22, 2022, in the aforementioned SLP matter. These directions pertained to opening a common portal for filing or revising forms for availing Transitional Credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 for a period of two months. The Supreme Court's order also stipulated that concerned officers would have 90 days thereafter to verify claims and pass orders, and that allowed transitional credit should be reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger. In light of these Supreme Court directions, the counsel for the petitioner stated that the instant petition was not pressed.

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 mandated the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) to open a common portal for filing or revising TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms for two months, from September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022. The Supreme Court also directed that any aggrieved registered assessee could file or revise their forms, irrespective of prior writ petitions or decisions by the ITGRC. Furthermore, GSTN was to ensure no technical glitches, and concerned officers were given 90 days to verify claims and pass orders after granting an opportunity to the parties. The ratio decidendi is that the Supreme Court's comprehensive directions provide a mechanism for taxpayers to avail transitional credit, superseding the need for individual High Court proceedings on this matter. Consequently, the counsel for the petitioner stated they did not press the instant petition. The High Court disposed of the petition in view of the Supreme Court's order.

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? The petitioner, through their counsel, did not press the petition, implicitly accepting the Supreme Court's directions as a resolution. The respondents, Union of India and others, and the State of Haryana, were represented and presented the Supreme Court's order to the High Court. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondents in the judgment, other than their participation in bringing the Supreme Court's order to the Court's attention. The core issue revolved around the procedural mechanism for availing transitional credit as directed by the Supreme Court.