Malabar Plywood vs. Union Of INDIA And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Malabar Plywood, through its Proprietor Navneet Singal, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The matter was listed for preliminary hearing on November 26, 2020, and was directed to be listed after the decision in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020. The parties brought to the court's notice that the Supreme Court had passed specific directions on July 22, 2022, in the aforementioned SLP(s). These directions pertained to opening a common portal for filing forms for availing transitional credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2, allowing aggrieved registered assessees to file or revise forms, ensuring no technical glitches, and providing a timeframe for verification and passing of orders by concerned officers. 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. These directions mandated the Goods and Service Tax Network (GSTN) to open a common portal for filing TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms for availing transitional credit for two months (September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022). The Supreme Court further directed that any aggrieved registered assessee could 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 on merits after affording an opportunity to the parties. The allowed transitional credit was to be reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger. In view of these directions, the counsel for the petitioner stated that the writ petition was not being pressed. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the petition as not pressed, in compliance with 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 directions issued by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020. Contentions: Petitioner: The petitioner, through its counsel, did not press the writ petition in light of the Supreme Court's directions, implying acceptance of the opportunity provided by the apex court to avail transitional credit. Revenue/State: The respondents, Union of India and another, represented by Senior Standing Counsel, did not present any arguments as the petitioner withdrew the petition based on the Supreme Court's order.