M/S Shree Ganesh Rice And General Mills vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shree Ganesh Rice and General Mills, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The petition 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 opening of the common portal for filing forms for availing Transitional Credit through 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 their forms, and concerned officers would have 90 days thereafter to verify claims and pass orders. Following these 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 directed the Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTN) to open a common portal for filing forms for availing Transitional Credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 for a period of two months, from September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022. The Supreme Court further directed that any aggrieved registered assessee could file or revise the relevant form, irrespective of whether a writ petition was filed or if the case was decided by the Information Technology Grievance Redressal Committee (ITGRC). The concerned officers were given 90 days thereafter to verify the veracity of the claim and pass appropriate orders. In light of these directions from the Supreme Court, the counsel for the petitioner stated that the instant petition was not pressed. The High Court therefore 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? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner did not explicitly argue any points as the matter was decided based on the Supreme Court's overarching directions. The petitioner's counsel withdrew the petition, implicitly accepting the relief provided by the Supreme Court's order. Respondents' Argument: The respondents, Union of India and others, did not present any arguments in opposition to the petitioner's claim, as the Supreme Court's order provided a mechanism for all aggrieved assessees to seek transitional credit. The respondents were represented and were bound by the Supreme Court's directions.