M/S Sterimed Medical Devices Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Others
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Sterimed Medical Devices Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging an unspecified order or action. 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. On July 22, 2022, the Supreme Court passed directions in these SLPs concerning the filing and processing of transitional credit claims through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms. Following the Supreme Court's order, the petitioner's counsel 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 transitional credit forms (TRAN-1 and TRAN-2) for two months, from September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022. The Supreme Court also directed that aggrieved registered assessees could file or revise forms irrespective of whether they had filed a writ petition or if their case was decided by the ITGRC. Furthermore, concerned officers were given 90 days thereafter to verify claims and pass orders on merits after affording an opportunity to the parties. The Supreme Court's order also stipulated that allowed transitional credit would 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. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the petition in terms of the Supreme Court's order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Supreme Court's directions in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020, concerning the opening of the GSTN portal for filing transitional credit forms (TRAN-1 and TRAN-2) for a specified period, are binding on the High Court in the present writ petition? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through its counsel, did not press the writ petition, implicitly accepting the applicability and binding nature of the Supreme Court's directions. No specific arguments were made by the petitioner regarding the interpretation or application of any particular GST provisions. Respondents' contention: The respondents, Union of India & others, were represented by counsel. However, the judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. The Supreme Court's order, which was brought to the notice of the High Court, directed the GSTN to open the portal and concerned officers to verify claims, indicating the respondents' likely stance in supporting compliance with these directions.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
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 perused the record, we are
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.
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.