M/S Vidhya Laxmi Steel INDIA PVT LTD Faridabad vs. Union Of INDIA And Others
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Vidhya Laxmi Steel India Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The matter was initially listed for preliminary hearing on 26.11.2020 and directed to be listed after the decision in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020. The Supreme Court, on 22.07.2022, passed specific directions concerning the filing and processing of transitional credit claims through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms. These directions mandated GSTN to open a common portal for two months, from 01.09.2022 to 31.10.2022, for aggrieved registered assessees to file or revise their forms. The Supreme Court also directed concerned officers to verify claims within 90 days thereafter and pass orders on merits. Following these directions, the counsel for the petitioner stated that the instant petition was not pressed.
Held
The Court noted that the Supreme Court, in its order dated 22.07.2022, had issued comprehensive directions regarding 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 (01.09.2022 to 31.10.2022) for assessees to file or revise their forms, followed by a 90-day period for verification and adjudication by the concerned officers. The Court observed that these directions were to be meticulously complied with by the authorities. In view of these Supreme Court directions, the counsel for the petitioner stated that the instant petition was not pressed. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the petition as not pressed, acknowledging that the Supreme Court's order provided the necessary recourse for the petitioner's grievance. No specific issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Supreme Court's directions dated 22.07.2022 in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020 provide adequate relief to the petitioner regarding their claim for transitional credit? 2. Whether the petitioner's writ petition is rendered infructuous in light of the Supreme Court's directions? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner, through their counsel, did not press the instant petition, implicitly accepting that the Supreme Court's directions provided a mechanism to address their grievance. No specific arguments were recorded for the petitioner beyond this stance. Revenue/Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, Union of India and others, were represented by counsel. However, the judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. Their role was primarily in response to the petitioner's petition and the subsequent Supreme Court 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 prop
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.