Facts of the Case

The batch of connected writ appeals arose from orders passed by learned Single Judges of the Karnataka High Court in separate writ petitions concerning the filing/uploading of TRAN-1 forms. In all these matters, the Union of India and other GST authorities challenged directions requiring the Revenue to open the GST portal so that the concerned taxpayers could upload TRAN-1 forms.

The lead appeal, W.A. No. 931 of 2021, arose from the order dated 15 March 2021 in W.P. No. 15280 of 2020, involving M/s Medreich Limited. The connected appeals arose from separate Single Judge orders concerning other taxpayers, including Alliance Buildwell Projects Pvt. Ltd., M/s URS Kars Service Centre Pvt. Ltd., M/s Asian Fab Tec Ltd., and M/s Adarsh Control and Automation Pvt. Ltd.

The Division Bench expressly recorded that, in all these cases, the Union of India had challenged orders of the learned Single Judge directing the Revenue to open the portal for uploading TRAN-1 forms. During the pendency of the appeals, the issue was addressed by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs Filco Trade Private Limited, where directions were issued for opening the common GST portal for filing the concerned forms.

Issues Involved

The principal issues arising in the connected appeals were:

  1. Whether the learned Single Judges were justified in directing the Revenue/GST authorities to open the portal for uploading TRAN-1 forms.
  2. Whether the Union of India’s challenges to those directions continued to require adjudication after the Supreme Court’s order in Union of India vs Filco Trade Private Limited.
  3. Whether the Supreme Court’s nationwide direction for opening the GST common portal for filing the concerned transitional forms effectively resolved the controversy involved in the pending writ appeals.
  4. Whether, in view of the Supreme Court’s intervention and the extension of the filing window, the connected appeals had become unnecessary for further consideration.

Petitioner/Appellants’ Arguments

The appellants, represented by learned Advocate Shri Amit Anand Deshpande, submitted that the issue had already been decided by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs Filco Trade Private Limited, cited in the judgment as TS-369-SC-2022-GST, decided on 22 July 2022.

It was specifically submitted that the Supreme Court had directed the Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) to open the common portal for filing the concerned forms between 1 September 2022 and 31 October 2022, and that the period was subsequently extended until 30 November 2022.

The appellants therefore placed the Supreme Court’s order before the Karnataka High Court as the decisive subsequent development governing the controversy. The Division Bench expressly recorded this submission.

Respondents’ Arguments

The short final judgment does not record any separate substantive counter-arguments advanced by the respondent taxpayers on the merits of the TRAN-1 controversy.

The judgment records appearances, including the appearance of the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State respondents in the relevant connected matters. However, no independent detailed respondent submission is reproduced in the operative reasoning.

Accordingly, it would not be appropriate to attribute any additional argument to the respondents beyond what is expressly contained in the judgment. The disposal was based upon the Supreme Court’s intervening order in Filco Trade Private Limited.

Court Order / Findings

The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court took note of the appellants’ submission concerning the Supreme Court’s order in Union of India vs Filco Trade Private Limited.

The Court found that, in view of the said Supreme Court order, the pending writ appeals did not survive for consideration.

Accordingly:

  • W.A. No. 931 of 2021;
  • W.A. No. 1016 of 2021;
  • W.A. No. 1051 of 2021;
  • W.A. No. 1113 of 2021; and
  • W.A. No. 1325 of 2021

were disposed of.

The Court further ordered no costs. The operative conclusion appears on page 9 of the judgment.

Important Clarification

This judgment is significant for a precise procedural reason: the Karnataka High Court did not undertake a fresh adjudication on the substantive merits of each taxpayer’s entitlement to transitional credit.

The connected appeals were disposed of because the Supreme Court’s order in Union of India vs Filco Trade Private Limited had intervened and provided a common portal-opening mechanism for filing the concerned forms. Therefore, the High Court concluded that the appeals no longer survived for consideration.

It is also important to distinguish between:

  • a direction enabling access to the portal and filing of the concerned transitional forms; and
  • a final determination that a particular taxpayer is substantively entitled to the transitional credit claimed.

The present judgment expressly records the portal-opening controversy and the consequential disposal of the appeals; it should not be read as an independent merits determination of every individual transitional credit claim.

Further, the judgment records the Supreme Court filing window as 1 September 2022 to 31 October 2022, with a further extension until 30 November 2022, based on the appellants’ submission accepted on record.

Sections / Legal Provisions Involved

Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act – The connected writ appeals were expressly filed under this provision against the respective orders of the learned Single Judges.

Section 140 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – Relevant substantive provision in the broader legal framework governing transitional arrangements for input tax credit carried forward into the GST regime.

Rule 117 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 – Relevant to the procedural framework for filing declarations in FORM GST TRAN-1.

FORM GST TRAN-1 – The transitional form at the centre of the portal-opening dispute.

Important precision note: The judgment itself expressly states that the writ appeals were filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act. The references to Section 140 of the CGST Act and Rule 117 of the CGST Rules describe the substantive statutory context of the TRAN-1 controversy and should not be presented as though the short Division Bench judgment expressly conducted a detailed interpretation of those provisions.

Link to download the order -https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783153630_852compressed.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.