M/S G.R Inds, Faridabad vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s G.R. Industries, Faridabad, filed a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The matter was listed for preliminary hearing and directed to be listed after the decision in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020. The Supreme Court, in its order dated July 22, 2022, issued directions concerning the filing and processing of transitional credit claims through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2. These directions included opening a common portal for two months, allowing aggrieved assessees to file or revise forms, ensuring no technical glitches, and providing a period for verification and order passing by concerned officers. The High Court noted that these directions were to be meticulously complied with by the authorities.

Held

The Court acknowledged the directions issued by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020, which mandated the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) to open a common portal for filing transitional credit forms (TRAN-1 and TRAN-2) for a period of two months (September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022). The Supreme Court further directed that aggrieved registered assessees could file or revise their forms, irrespective of prior writ petitions or decisions by the Information Technology Grievance Redressal Committee (ITGRC). Concerned officers were given 90 days thereafter to verify claims and pass orders on merits after granting an opportunity to the parties. The Court stated that these directions had to be meticulously complied with by the authorities. In view of these Supreme Court directions, the counsel for the petitioner did not press the instant writ petition. Consequently, the petition was disposed of.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court's directions in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020 regarding transitional credit claims are to be complied with by the concerned authorities? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner's counsel, in light of the Supreme Court's order, did not press the instant petition. Respondents' contention: The respondents, Union of India and others, were represented by counsel. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondents, but their presence indicates their role in the proceedings and compliance with the Supreme Court's directions. 2. Whether the writ petition should be disposed of in view of the Supreme Court's directions? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner's counsel did not press the petition, implying acceptance of the Supreme Court's directions as a resolution or a path forward. Respondents' contention: Not recorded.