9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 189 - HC - GSTSeeking either to re-open the online portal so as to enable the Petitioners to file TRAN-I form electronically for claiming tax credit or to accept the same manually on or before 30.06.2021 - HELD THAT - Learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks permission to file amended Memo of Parties by giving the name of the Officer who according to the Petitioner has violated the order of this Court. Let the amended Memo of Parties be filed before the next date of hearing - List on 22.07.2022.
Issues:
Contempt petition for non-compliance of court order dated 27.05.2021 regarding filing TRAN-I form for tax credit electronically or manually. Analysis: The judgment deals with a contempt petition filed for non-compliance of a court order dated 27.05.2021, directing the respondents to either re-open the online portal for filing the TRAN-I form electronically or accept it manually for claiming tax credit. The petitioner had filed the form manually on 15.06.2021, but the respondent department, in a communication dated 23.08.2021, stated that they had not accepted the court order and had sent a proposal to the CBIC Legal Cell to set aside or quash the order. The department referred to a stay granted by the Supreme Court in a similar matter as a reason for not processing the petitioner's request. The petitioner's counsel argued that the pendency of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against a previous court order should not hinder compliance with the current court order. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the pendency of an SLP against a previous court order should not be a reason for the respondent department to not comply with the current court order. The respondent's counsel sought time to file a reply, stating that the issue in a related case would impact the compliance of the current order. The court granted four weeks for the reply to be filed and allowed two weeks for a rejoinder if necessary. Additionally, the petitioner sought permission to amend the Memo of Parties to name the officer allegedly responsible for violating the court order, which was permitted to be filed before the next hearing scheduled for 22.07.2022. The case highlights the importance of timely compliance with court orders and the significance of distinguishing between different legal proceedings to ensure justice is served.
|
