M/S Shiv Om Enterprises vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shiv Om Enterprises, 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 certain Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, on July 22, 2022, passed specific directions concerning the filing and processing of transitional credit claims through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms. These directions included opening a common portal for two months, allowing aggrieved assessees to file or revise forms irrespective of prior writ petitions or ITGRC decisions, ensuring no technical glitches, and providing a 90-day period for officers to verify claims and pass orders. Following the Supreme Court's order, the counsel for the petitioner stated that the instant petition was not pressed.

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in light of the directions issued by the Supreme Court on July 22, 2022. The Supreme Court had directed the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) to open a common portal for filing transitional credit forms (TRAN-1 and TRAN-2) for two months, from September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022. Any aggrieved registered assessee was permitted to file or revise their forms, regardless of whether they had filed a writ petition or if their case had been decided by the Information Technology Grievance Redressal Committee (ITGRC). The GSTN was also directed to ensure no technical glitches occurred. Concerned officers were granted 90 days thereafter to verify claims and pass orders on merits after providing an opportunity to the parties. The ratio decidendi is that the Supreme Court's comprehensive directions provide a mechanism for assessees to claim transitional credit, superseding the need for individual High Court adjudication in such matters when the petitioner does not press the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to avail transitional credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms given the Supreme Court's directions on July 22, 2022? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner, through their counsel, did not press the instant petition, implying acceptance of the Supreme Court's directions and the opportunity provided therein. Revenue's Argument: The revenue, represented by counsel, did not present any specific argument against the petitioner's claim but would be bound by the Supreme Court's directions. The Supreme Court's order itself addressed the circumstances under which aggrieved registered assessees could file or revise forms for transitional credit, considering various High Court judgments.