Bharat Radio And Electrics Co. vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Bharat Radio & Electric Co., through its partner Rajesh Mahajan, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and 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, on July 22, 2022, passed directions concerning the filing of transitional credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms. These directions involved opening a common portal for two months, allowing aggrieved assessees to file or revise forms irrespective of prior writ petitions or ITGRC decisions, and ensuring no technical glitches. Concerned officers were given 90 days thereafter to verify claims and pass orders. The Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petitions with these directions.

Held

The Court noted that the Supreme Court, in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020, had issued comprehensive directions on July 22, 2022, concerning the filing of transitional credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms. These directions included opening a common portal for two months (September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022) for filing or revising forms, irrespective of prior High Court writ petitions or ITGRC decisions. The Court also noted that GSTN was directed to ensure no technical glitches, and concerned officers were given 90 days to verify claims and pass orders. In light of these Supreme Court directions, which provided a clear mechanism for assessees to claim transitional credit, the counsel for the petitioner stated that they did not press the instant writ petition. The Court found it appropriate to dispose of the petition in view of the Supreme Court's order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court's directions in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020, issued on 22.07.2022, provide a mechanism for the petitioner to avail transitional credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms, thereby rendering the present writ petition infructuous. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through its counsel, acknowledged the Supreme Court's directions and, in light of these directions, did not press the instant petition. Revenue's contention: The revenue, represented by Senior Standing Counsel and Additional Advocate General, was present and aware of the Supreme Court's order. No specific argument was recorded for the revenue, but their presence implies acknowledgment of the Supreme Court's binding directions.