2019 (8) TMI 1353 - HC - GST

Contempt of court - rejection of petitioner's request for uploading FORM GST TRAN-1 by the Nodal officer - Disobedience of directions issued in judgment dated 10/07/2018 2018 (8) TMI 974 - KERALA HIGH COURT or not - HELD THAT - The contention is noted and after perusing the record, this Court is of the view that the decision in terms of the judgment dated 10/07/2018 is taken in the meeting held on 12/02/2019. The outcome of the decision is that the request of petitioner is rejected . Therefore, the petitioner is required to treat the decision taken on 12.02.2019 as a decision on the request of the petitioner and it so challenges the decisions as provided for by law. The reply of respondent does not warrant continuation of contempt proceedings. Contempt case dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Disobedience of directions issued in a judgment dated 10/07/2018, failure to communicate decisions to the petitioner within stipulated time, continuous disobedience of court directions, challenge against decisions taken by the respondent.

Analysis:
The contempt case was filed due to the disobedience of directions issued in a judgment dated 10/07/2018. The petitioner complained that the respondent did not take a decision within the stipulated time and failed to communicate the decision as required by the judgment. This inaction was considered willful disobedience of the court's directions. The respondent, in their counter affidavit, stated that they had taken steps in compliance with the court's directions. They submitted required particulars to the petitioner and took up the petitioner's case with GSTN. The ITGRC categorized the petitioner's case under category B-2, where no valid error was reported. The ITGRC decided not to allow filing of FORM GST TRAN-1 as there was no evidence of an IT glitch in the petitioner's case.

The respondent provided minutes of the 4th meeting of the IT-GRC held on 12/02/2019, where the decision regarding the petitioner's case was made. The petitioner contended that this decision was not communicated to them, leading to continuous disobedience. The court examined the record and found that the decision to reject the petitioner's request was made in the meeting held on 12/02/2019. The court held that the petitioner should treat this decision as final and challenge it according to the law. As the respondent's reply did not warrant further contempt proceedings, the case was dismissed. The petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the decision taken on 12/02/2019, and the respondent was not allowed to object to such a challenge.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the contempt case, noting that the decision on the petitioner's request was made in the meeting held on 12/02/2019. The petitioner was advised to challenge this decision according to the law, and the respondent was not permitted to raise objections against such a challenge.