2023 (9) TMI 1404 - HC - GST

Inaction on the part of the Authority - order was passed by this Court on 14.08.2023 whereas warrant of arrest was issued by the Executive Magistrate on 19.08.2023 - HELD THAT - Upon examination of the order passed by this Court, it appears that though the order was passed on 14.08.2023, it was placed before the Special Magistrate only on 22.08.2023, when the warrant of arrest had already been issued on 19.08.2023. Therefore, it is opined that the respondent cannot be prima facie found guilty of having acted in contempt of order dated 14.08.2023, as the warrant of arrest was issued even before the said order was placed before the Authority. However, learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that an application for recall of the NBW has been filed by the petitioner before the Authority on 24.08.2023. It is deemed appropriate to dispose of this contempt petition with a request to the learned Authority to pass an order on the application for recalling of warrant within a period of one week from the date on which the certified copy of this order is placed before the learned Authority. This contempt petition stands disposed of.

Summary

Issues involved: Alleged inaction by the Authority leading to contempt of court order

The judgment deals with a contempt petition filed by the petitioner, alleging inaction on the part of the Authority, which the petitioner claims did not act in accordance with the law. The petitioner was granted liberty by the Court to appear before the Special Tehsildar Recoveries, Srinagar, to raise objections, including lack of jurisdiction. Despite this order, a warrant of arrest was issued by the Executive Magistrate before the order was placed before the Special Magistrate. The petitioner also filed an application for the recall of the warrant.

Analysis and Decision:

Upon examining the timeline, the Court noted that the order was passed on 14.08.2023, but it was presented to the Special Magistrate only on 22.08.2023, after the warrant of arrest had already been issued on 19.08.2023. Consequently, the Court found that the respondent cannot be prima facie held guilty of contempt as the warrant was issued before the order was placed before the Authority. However, the petitioner's application for the recall of the warrant was acknowledged.

Court's Directive:

In light of the circumstances, the Court decided to dispose of the contempt petition. The Court requested the Authority to decide on the application for recalling the warrant within one week of receiving the certified copy of the order. The contempt petition was thus concluded with this directive for the Authority to take appropriate action within the specified timeframe.