9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 511 - HC - GSTContempt petition - wilful obedience - Re-opening the common portal to enable the petitioner to file Tran-1 Form - HELD THAT - An affidavit on behalf of the respondents, filed in Court today, is taken on record. A copy of the same is handed over to learned counsel for the petitioner. Alongwith affidavit, copy of the minutes of meeting/decision dated 27.05.2019 has also been annexed whereby the representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected. No cause of action survives for pursuing the contempt petition Appeal disposed off.
Issues: Contempt of court for wilful disobedience of court order
Analysis: The judgment pertains to a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of a court order dated 14.08.2018 in CWP No. 19574 of 2018. The said order granted liberty to the petitioners to file representations to the I.T. Redressal Committee. The writ petition was disposed of in line with the decision in CWP No. 4180 of 2018 titled Surinder Arora Enterprises Versus State of Punjab and others, dated 21.05.2018. In this judgment, liberty was granted to petitioners who had not filed any representation to do so within five days from the receipt of the order. The representations were to be forwarded to the I.T. Redressal Committee for decision within fifteen days after verification by the G.S.T.N. The Committee was directed to decide the representations by passing a speaking order and providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within four weeks from the receipt of the representations, allowing the petitioners to present evidence to substantiate their claims. An affidavit on behalf of the respondents was filed in court, along with the minutes of a meeting/decision dated 27.05.2019, where the representation filed by the petitioner was rejected. The counsel for the petitioners contended that no cause of action remains for pursuing the contempt petition but sought liberty to seek remedies as per the law. Consequently, the court disposed of the matter as infructuous and discharged the rule issued against the respondents.
|
