M/S Cotton Impex vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Cotton Impex, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging an order or action related to GST. The specific tax period and the authority that passed the order are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the matter was listed after a decision in certain Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in its order dated July 22, 2022, in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020, issued directions concerning the filing and processing of transitional credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms. Following the Supreme Court's directions, the counsel for the petitioner stated that they did not press the instant petition.

Held

The High Court held that in view of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020, the petitioner did not press the instant writ petition. 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 (September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022). It was further directed that any aggrieved registered assessee could file or revise their forms, irrespective of prior writ petitions or decisions by the ITGRC. GSTN was to ensure no technical glitches, and concerned officers were given 90 days thereafter to verify claims and pass orders on merits after affording an opportunity to the parties. Allowed transitional credit was to be reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger. The High Court noted that these directions were to be meticulously complied with by the authorities. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of as the petitioner did not press it.

Key Issues

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to relief in their writ petition concerning GST transitional credit. The Court had to consider the impact of the Supreme Court's directions issued in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020. The petitioner's argument, as indicated by their counsel not pressing the petition, was likely that the Supreme Court's directions provided an adequate remedy, rendering the writ petition infructuous. The respondents, Union of India and others, would have argued for compliance with the Supreme Court's order and the dismissal of the writ petition as the petitioner was not pressing it. The Supreme Court's directions addressed the opening of a common portal for filing TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms, allowing aggrieved assessees to file or revise forms, ensuring no technical glitches, and providing a timeline for verification and order passing by concerned officers.