M/S Luxmi Looms vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Luxmi Looms, Panipat, filed a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. 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 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 registered assessees to file or revise forms irrespective of prior writ petitions or ITGRC decisions, and mandating verification of claims by concerned officers within 90 days thereafter. The High Court noted that these directions were to be meticulously complied with by the authorities.

Held

The High Court held that the directions issued by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020 were to be meticulously complied with by the authorities concerned. These directions mandated the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) to open a common portal for filing or revising transitional credit forms (TRAN-1 and TRAN-2) for a period of two months, from September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022. The Court further noted that aggrieved registered assessees could 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 concerned officers were given 90 days thereafter to verify the claims and pass appropriate orders on merits after granting an opportunity to the parties. The allowed transitional credit was to be reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger. In view of these Supreme Court directions, the counsel for the petitioner stated that the instant petition was not pressed. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court's directions in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020, concerning the opening of a common portal for filing transitional credit forms (TRAN-1 and TRAN-2) and the subsequent verification process, are to be complied with by the concerned authorities. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner's counsel did not press the instant petition in light of the Supreme Court's directions. This implies acceptance of the Supreme Court's order as governing the present case. Respondents' contention: The respondents, Union of India and others, were represented, and the judgment notes that the Supreme Court heard counsel for different States and private parties. The Supreme Court's order itself constitutes the direction to the respondents (concerned officers and GSTN) to comply with the stipulated procedures.