9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 903 - HC - GSTReopening of Form GST TRAN-1 - filing of GST TRAN-1 - transfer of transitional credit into its electronic credit ledger - HELD THAT - This writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent concerned to consider and dispose of the aforesaid representation of the petitioners dated 31st May, 2018 in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or its authorised representative within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order and shall communicate his decision to the petitioners within one week after passing of such order. At the time of hearing, the respondent concerned shall consider the judgments upon which the petitioners want to rely as to whether in the facts and circumstances of this case those judgments are applicable in the case of the petitioners or not. Petition disposed off.
Issues: Petition for reopening Form GST TRAN-1 and transferring transitional credit into electronic credit ledger; Delay in disposal of representation by respondent authority; Reliance on judgments of Delhi High Court and Calcutta High Court; Direction to consider and dispose of representation within specified timeline.
Analysis: 1. Petition for Reopening Form GST TRAN-1 and Transferring Transitional Credit: The petitioners sought relief to direct the respondent authority to reopen Form GST TRAN-1 and enable them to file the GST TRAN-1 and transfer the transitional credit into the electronic credit ledger. The petitioners had previously made a representation for this relief, which remained undisposed of. The High Court directed the respondent concerned to consider and dispose of the representation by passing a reasoned order within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order. The decision was to be communicated to the petitioners within one week after passing the order. 2. Delay in Disposal of Representation: The petitioners' grievance was centered around the delay in the disposal of their representation dated 31st May, 2018, which had not been considered or disposed of by the respondent authority. The court emphasized the importance of addressing the petitioners' claim in a timely manner and directed the respondent to provide an opportunity for a hearing to the petitioners or their authorized representative. 3. Reliance on Judgments of Delhi High Court and Calcutta High Court: The petitioners relied on judgments from the Delhi High Court and the Calcutta High Court to support their claim for relief. Specifically, they cited the case of Super India Paper Products vs. Union of India from the Delhi High Court and Rishi Graphics (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India from the Calcutta High Court. The court instructed the respondent to consider these judgments during the hearing to determine their applicability to the petitioners' case. 4. Direction to Consider and Dispose of Representation: The High Court clarified that it did not delve into the merits of the petitioners' claim or relief. Instead, it directed the respondent concerned to decide the case strictly in accordance with the law. The court's order to consider and dispose of the representation within the specified timeline aimed to ensure a timely resolution of the petitioners' grievance. Overall, the High Court's judgment in WPA 2641 of 2020 focused on addressing the delay in disposing of the petitioners' representation and providing a clear directive for the respondent authority to consider and decide on the matter within a specified timeframe, while also taking into account the judgments cited by the petitioners during the proceedings.
|
