Omax Autos LTD. District Udham Singh Nagar Through Its Authorized Representative Manish Saini vs. The Commissioner CGST And Central Excise District Udham Singh Nagar

Facts

The petitioner, a company, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to allow rectification of its TRAN-1 Form. The petitioner sought to make changes to its TRAN-1 Form, which is used for availing transitional credit under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. The respondents are the revenue authorities. The specific tax period for which rectification was sought is not explicitly stated in the judgment. The petition was filed before the High Court. The core of the dispute revolves around the petitioner's inability to rectify its TRAN-1 Form.

Held

The Court held that the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 32709 – 32710 of 2018 (Union of India and another Vs. FILCO Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. And another) dated 22.07.2022. The Supreme Court's order directed the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) to open a common portal for filing and revising TRAN-1 and TRAN-2 forms for two months, from 01.09.2022 to 31.10.2022. Any aggrieved registered assessee was permitted to file or revise their forms, irrespective of prior writ petitions or decisions by the ITGRC. GSTN was to ensure no technical glitches, and concerned officers were given 90 days thereafter to verify claims and pass orders on merits after affording an opportunity to the parties. Allowed transitional credit would then reflect in the Electronic Credit Ledger. The High Court's decision was to follow this directive.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction to rectify its TRAN-1 Form, considering the Supreme Court's order in Union of India and another Vs. FILCO Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. And another? The petitioner, through its learned counsel, argued that the present controversy has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's order to seek relief. The respondents, represented by their learned counsel, did not present any arguments against the petitioner's claim, as the judgment indicates that the parties submitted that the controversy had already been settled by the Supreme Court. Therefore, no specific arguments were recorded for the respondents in opposition to the petitioner's prayer.