M/S Anand Steel Traders vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Anand Steel Traders, 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 a two-month period, allowing aggrieved registered assessees to file or revise forms irrespective of prior writ petitions or ITGRC decisions, and mandating GSTN to ensure no technical glitches. 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 being pressed.

Held

The High Court noted that the Supreme Court, in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020, had issued comprehensive directions on July 22, 2022, regarding the availing of transitional credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms. These directions mandated GSTN to open a common portal for two months (September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022) for filing or revising forms, irrespective of prior writ petitions or ITGRC decisions. The Supreme Court also directed concerned officers to verify claims within 90 days and pass orders on merits after granting an opportunity to parties. The High Court observed that these directions were to be meticulously complied with by the authorities. Consequently, the counsel for the petitioner stated that they did not press the instant petition. The High Court, therefore, disposed 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, dated July 22, 2022, provide a comprehensive mechanism for the petitioner to avail transitional credit, thereby rendering the present writ petition infructuous? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, indicated that they did not press the instant petition, implying acceptance of the Supreme Court's directions as a sufficient remedy. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, Union of India and others, were represented by counsel. While no specific argument was recorded against the petitioner's decision not to press the petition, their presence and representation suggest they would abide by the Supreme Court's order. The judgment notes that the Supreme Court's directions were brought to the notice of the Court by the counsel for the parties.