Case Law Details
Mauria Udyog Ltd. Vs Union of India (Delhi High Court)
It appears that in the present case, there was a technical problem that was required to be resolved. The respondents have now resolved the same by opening the portal for filing the revised forms including TRAN-1. Although this Court is of the view that if there were any technical problems in implementing the order dated 31.10.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.5224/2018, the respondents ought to have approached this Court rather than disregarding the implementation of the order dated 31.10.2018. This Court was also inclined to impose exemplary costs for the aforesaid reasons. However, given the mitigating circumstance that the GST was rolled out recently and the respondents have been endeavouring to resolve the problems in implementation of the GST, this Court considers it apposite to refrain from imposing any such costs.
The petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, if the respondents do not provide the credit, which the petitioner is entitled to by 28.02.2022, the respondents would be entitled to pay interest for any further delay at the rate of 12% per annum
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under:
“i) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction including a writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to comply with the order dtd. 31.10.18, passed by this Hon’ble Court in WP[C] 5224/18.
ii) direct the respondents to allow credit of Rs 5913946/- along with interest, and all other credits which are legally due to the petitioner, either electronically, or manually.”
2. The petitioner had filed the earlier writ petition [W.P.(C) No.5224/2018], inter alia, seeking a direction that it be allowed credit for the specified amount along with interest, which the petitioner claimed it was entitled to. The petitioner’s grievance was that its revised returns had not been processed by the respondents.
3. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 31.10.2018. The operative part of the said order reads as under:
“Given that the reasonableness in such case is contextual inter alia, the assessee cannot see revision beyond the prescribed tax period or periods in question.
In view of the discussion, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to relief. A direction is issued to the respondents to take on record and process originally filed returns on 04.10.2018 which the petitioner attempted / sought to file and process it in accordance with law within 4 weeks.
The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.”
4. In compliance with the said order, the petitioner’s revised return was taken on record. However, it was not provided the credit, which it claims amounts to ₹59,13,946/-.
5. There is some controversy as to the amount of credit payable. According to respondents, the petitioner filed the revised form, TRAN-1, on 08.10.2022 claiming a credit of ₹57,13,829/-. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents further states that the petitioner’s revised TRAN-1 would be duly verified and processed within a period of ninety days, that is, from 01.12.2022 to 28.02.2023, in terms of the blanket orders passed by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Filco Trade Centre Pvt. Ltd.: SLP(C) No. 032709-032710, pursuant to which the portal for filing the revised forms has been opened for all assessees.
6. The respondents are bound down to the said statement.
7. In view of the above, the petitioner’s grievance regarding denial of transit of credit, pursuant to its revised return stands addressed. The remaining question to be addressed is whether the petitioner is entitled to any interest as claimed.
8. There is no provision for payment of interest. The petitioners have premised their claim on the ground that the order dated 31.10.2018 was not complied with.
9. It is relevant to note that the petitioner’s first prayer in the present petition is seeking compliance of the order dated 31.10.2018. Clearly, no such relief can be granted. Once an order has been passed by the Court, the same is required to be complied with without any further orders to that effect. If there is wilful disobedience of the order dated 31.10.2018, the necessary consequences would follow.
10. It appears that in the present case, there was a technical problem that was required to be resolved. The respondents have now resolved the same by opening the portal for filing the revised forms including TRAN-1. Although this Court is of the view that if there were any technical problems in implementing the order dated 31.10.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.5224/2018, the respondents ought to have approached this Court rather than disregarding the implementation of the order dated 31.10.2018. This Court was also inclined to impose exemplary costs for the aforesaid reasons. However, given the mitigating circumstance that the GST was rolled out recently and the respondents have been endeavouring to resolve the problems in implementation of the GST, this Court considers it apposite to refrain from imposing any such costs.
11. The petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, if the respondents do not provide the credit, which the petitioner is entitled to by 28.02.2022, the respondents would be entitled to pay interest for any further delay at the rate of 12% per annum
