Facts of the Case

The petitioners had instituted writ petitions before the Delhi High Court concerning the filing and/or revision of FORM GST TRAN-1 electronically through the common GSTN Portal.

During the hearing, learned counsel appearing for the respondents stated that the writ petitions did not survive in view of the order passed by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 140 taxmann.com 535 (SC).

The respondents further stated before the Court that the common GSTN Portal was open as on the date of the order.

Issues Involved

The principal issue before the Court was whether the pending writ petitions concerning electronic filing and/or revision of TRAN-1 continued to survive after the Supreme Court’s order in Union of India vs Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd.

A connected issue was whether the petitioners were at liberty to file or revise TRAN-1 electronically through the common GSTN Portal.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioners had approached the Delhi High Court through their respective writ petitions in relation to their ability to file and/or revise TRAN-1 electronically.

The order does not record any further detailed independent submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. Accordingly, no additional arguments beyond the subject matter reflected in the judicial order should be attributed to them.

Respondent’s Arguments

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the writ petitions did not survive in view of the Supreme Court’s order in:

Union of India vs Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 140 taxmann.com 535 (SC).

The respondents further stated that the common GSTN Portal was open as of the date of hearing, i.e., 02 November 2022.

Court Order / Findings

The Delhi High Court took note of:

  • the Supreme Court’s order in Union of India vs Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd.; and
  • the respondents’ statement that the common GSTN Portal was open.

In view of the Supreme Court order and the statement made before it, the Delhi High Court held that it was apparent that the petitioners were at liberty to file/file revise TRAN-1 electronically.

Accordingly, the writ petitions were disposed of as satisfied.

Important Clarification

The Delhi High Court did not undertake a fresh detailed adjudication on the substantive merits of each petitioner’s transitional credit claim.

The disposal was based on the effect of the Supreme Court’s order in Union of India vs Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. and the respondents’ statement that the common GSTN Portal was open.

The operative clarification emerging from the order is that the petitioners were at liberty to file/file revise TRAN-1 electronically.

Further, the order should not be read as recording detailed petitioner-specific findings regarding the admissibility, quantum, verification, or final allowance of transitional credit, because no such detailed findings are contained in the order.

Sections / Legal Provisions Involved

Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Transitional arrangements for input tax credit.

Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 — Procedural framework concerning submission of declaration in FORM GST TRAN-1.

FORM GST TRAN-1 — Declaration relating to transitional credit under the GST regime.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India — Writ jurisdiction of the High Court, relevant to the institution of the writ petitions.

Key Legal Takeaway

Where pending writ petitions concerned the electronic filing or revision of FORM GST TRAN-1, the Delhi High Court, taking note of the Supreme Court’s order in Union of India vs Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd. and the opening of the common GSTN Portal, held that the petitioners were at liberty to file/file revise TRAN-1 electronically and disposed of the petitions as satisfied.

Link to download the order -

https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783321748_1211compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.