2020 (11) TMI 424 - HC - GST

Contempt Petition - allegation is that the case of the petitioner for amendment of TRAN-1 form was not considered and no orders were passed in the case of petitioner - Department has processed the case and found that there was no logs of error evidencing any technical glitch faced by taxpayer - HELD THAT - The direction issued to the respondents in the writ petition was to consider the case of the petitioner and to decide it in light of the judgment and communication referred to above. Pursuant to the directions, the respondents considered and decided the case of the petitioner. The decision has been taken, therefore, it cannot be said the respondents have flouted the judgment passed by this Court. Consequently, no contempt is made out and the same is dismissed. Notice discharged.

Summary

Issues:
Wilful disobedience of a judgment by respondents regarding amendment of TRAN-1 form.

Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner alleged wilful disobedience of a judgment by the respondents, stating that their case for amending the TRAN-1 form was not considered and no orders were passed. The writ petition filed by the petitioner highlighted that they had a CENVAT Credit balance of Central Taxes and had filed for additional credit, seeking direction to amend the form. The writ petition was disposed of with directions to consider the case for amendment within three weeks. However, the respondents contended that the petitioner's case was discussed in a meeting and found not qualified for reopening the portal due to discrepancies in the filed information.

The petitioner argued that the respondents did not comply with the judgment and communication provided, leading to the contempt petition. On the other hand, the respondents claimed that they had considered and rejected the petitioner's case in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized that the direction was to 'consider' the case, and the respondents had indeed considered the judgment, communication, and related aspects before making a decision. The Court referred to a previous case to explain the implication of directing an authority to 'consider' a case, emphasizing that the authority must apply its mind to the facts and circumstances and decide accordingly.

The Court concluded that the respondents had considered and decided the petitioner's case as per the directions given, indicating that the judgment was not flouted. Therefore, the contempt petition was dismissed, with liberty reserved for the petitioner to seek further legal remedy if still aggrieved. The Court highlighted the importance of clear and specific directions in such cases, ensuring that the authority considers the matter within a reasonable time frame to avoid repeated legal interventions.

In summary, the judgment addressed the issue of alleged disobedience of a court order regarding the amendment of a tax credit form. The Court clarified the significance of directing an authority to 'consider' a case and concluded that the respondents had fulfilled their obligation by evaluating and deciding the petitioner's case as per the given directions. The dismissal of the contempt petition was based on the finding that the respondents had not flouted the court's judgment.