9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 46 - HC - GSTUnable to upload TRAN-1 Form - transitional input tax credit - transition to GST regime - HELD THAT - A Division Bench of this Court has already disposed of the aforesaid writ petition in the case of M/S JAY BEE INDUSTRIES VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2019 (11) TMI 1245 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT wherein it has specifically been held that it was only on the ground of technical glitches that TRAN-1 Form could not be filed as the GST network had prevented the petitioner from claiming input tax credit of the excess duty paid by its vendor. Admittedly, such technical glitches have continued even thereafter. Once, that be so, then obviously, it cannot be said that the respondents have either deliberately or willfully violated the orders of this Court. Contempt petition dismissed.
Issues: Contempt proceedings for violation of court order
Analysis: 1. The petitioner initiated contempt proceedings against the respondents, alleging a violation of the court order dated 19.09.2018 in CWP No. 2169 of 2018. The order required the petitioner to remove objections within three weeks, and the respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to upload the Trans-I return to claim input tax credit. The urgency was highlighted as failure to upload the return would result in the petitioner losing the credit. 2. A Division Bench of the High Court had previously disposed of the writ petition CWP No. 2169 of 2018, stating that technical glitches prevented the filing of the TRAN-1 Form, thereby hindering the petitioner from claiming input tax credit. The court acknowledged that these technical issues persisted. Consequently, it was established that the respondents did not willfully or deliberately violate the court orders. 3. Given the technical challenges faced by the petitioner in filing the required form and claiming input tax credit, the court found no merit in the contempt petition. The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the respondents had not violated the court orders intentionally. As a result, the notices issued to the respondents were discharged, and the contempt petition was rejected.
|
