Skyway Forge vs. Union Of INDIA And Another
Facts
The petitioner, Skyway Forge, 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 22.07.2022, issued directions concerning the filing of forms for availing transitional credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2. These directions mandated GSTN to open a common portal for a two-month period from 01.09.2022 to 31.10.2022. Aggrieved registered assessees were directed to file or revise their forms, irrespective of prior writ petitions or decisions by the ITGRC. The concerned officers were given 90 days thereafter to verify claims and pass orders. Following these Supreme Court directions, the counsel for the petitioner stated that the instant petition was not pressed.
Held
The High Court held that in view of the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020 on 22.07.2022, the petitioner did not press the instant writ petition. The Supreme Court's order directed GSTN to open a common portal for filing forms for availing transitional credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 for two months (01.09.2022 to 31.10.2022). It also stipulated that aggrieved registered assessees could file or revise their forms irrespective of prior writ petitions or ITGRC decisions. Concerned officers were given 90 days to verify claims and pass orders. The ratio decidendi is that when a higher court provides a comprehensive mechanism to address the grievance, a writ petition filed before a High Court on the same subject matter may not be pressed by the petitioner. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in light 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 contention: The petitioner, through its counsel, did not press the petition in light of the Supreme Court's order dated 22.07.2022, which provided a mechanism for availing transitional credit. The petitioner implicitly relied on the Supreme Court's directions to resolve the issue of transitional credit. Respondents' contention: The respondents, Union of India and another, were represented by counsel who brought the Supreme Court's order to the High Court's notice. No specific argument was recorded for the respondents other than their participation in the proceedings and the presentation of the Supreme Court's order.
Sections Cited
TRAN-1, TRAN-2
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Permission to file Special Leave Petition (s) is allowed.
Delay condoned.
Having heard learned Additional Solicitor General, learned counsel appearing for different States and learned counsel appearing for different private parties and having perused the record, we are of the view that it is just and proper to issue the followi
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.