M/S Nand Lal Steels vs. Union Of INDIA And Anr

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Nand Lal Steels, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and 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 directions regarding the availing of transitional credit through TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms. These directions included opening a common portal for filing and revising forms for two months, from September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022. The Supreme Court also directed concerned officers to verify claims within 90 days and pass orders on merits after granting an opportunity to the parties. Following these directions, the counsel for the petitioner stated that the instant petition was not pressed.

Held

The Supreme Court, in SLP (C) Nos. 7425-7428 of 2020, issued specific directions to address the issue of transitional credit. These directions mandated the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) to open a common portal for filing and revising TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms for a period of two months (September 1, 2022, to October 31, 2022). The Court emphasized that any aggrieved registered assessee could file or revise their forms, irrespective of prior writ petitions or decisions by the Information Technology Grievance Redressal Committee (ITGRC). GSTN was directed to ensure no technical glitches. Concerned officers were given 90 days post the filing period to verify claims and pass orders on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity to the parties. Allowed transitional credit was to be reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger. The High Court, in light of these Supreme Court directions, noted that the counsel for the petitioner did not press the instant petition. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of in terms 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 writ petition in light of the Supreme Court's comprehensive directions which provided a mechanism for availing transitional credit. Revenue's contention: The respondents, Union of India and another, were represented by Senior Standing Counsel. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue, but their participation implies adherence to the Supreme Court's order. The Supreme Court's order itself considered arguments from various parties, including the revenue, before issuing directions.