2024 (12) TMI 1227 - HC - GST

Contempt of Court - interference with the administration of justice by arresting the petitioner - HELD THAT - From the Arrest Memo dated 20 December 2024, it is apparent that this Arrest Memo is signed again by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax. The Arrest Memo shows that the authorisation for this arrest was obtained on 20 December 2024 i.e. today itself and the Petitioner was arrested at 7.55 am today itself - Prima facie this amounts to interference with the administration of justice and consequently, might amount to a Contempt of Court. The petition is posted on 06 January 2025. Before that date, the Commissioner should consider and dispose of the Petitioner s objections/representation dated 11 December 2024 made in Form GST DRC-22A under Rule 159(5) of the MGST Rules. For this, the Commissioner, must give a hearing to the Petitioner and pass a speaking order. In this case, we direct Respondent No. 2 to decide these objections/representation. List this matter on 06 January 2025.

Summary

Issues:
1. Contempt of Court for interference with the administration of justice by arresting the petitioner.
2. Authorization and responsibility for the arrest of the petitioner.
3. Notice issued to the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and the Joint Commissioner State Tax for contempt proceedings.
4. Directions for the Commissioner to consider and dispose of the petitioner's objections.

Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay addressed the issue of potential Contempt of Court due to interference with the administration of justice by arresting the petitioner despite being summoned for a statement. The arrest memo signed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax on the same day as the authorization raised concerns of intimidation and penalization for approaching the court. The court refrained from making further observations but issued a notice to the Assistant Commissioner to show cause for potential contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act.

Regarding the authorization and responsibility for the arrest, it was revealed that the entire action was carried out based on the authorization of the Joint Commissioner State Tax, Investigation. The Assistant Commissioner, present in court, informed that the Joint Commissioner was aware of the court hearing but still authorized the arrest. Consequently, the court issued a notice to the Joint Commissioner to show cause for potential contempt proceedings and file a reply by a specified date.

Furthermore, the court directed the Commissioner to consider and dispose of the petitioner's objections made under the MGST Rules before a specified date. The Commissioner was instructed to give a hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order on the objections/representation. The main petition was scheduled for a later date to allow for the Commissioner's decision on the petitioner's objections.

In summary, the judgment highlighted issues of potential Contempt of Court, the authorization and responsibility for the petitioner's arrest, notices issued to the Assistant Commissioner and Joint Commissioner for contempt proceedings, and directions for the Commissioner to address the petitioner's objections within a specified timeline.