9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, 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. - COPC No. 2 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 10-11-2020 - Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge For the Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2 ORDER Jyotsna Rewal Dua , Judge ( Oral ) The petitioner asserts that the judgment dated 20.11.2019 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.1551 of 2018, titled Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Versus Union of India others, has been wilfully disobeyed by the respondents, hence, instant contempt pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sider the case of the petitioner-Company for amendment of TRAN-1 form and pass appropriate orders within a period of three weeks from today. Alleging 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, this contempt petition was instituted. 3. In their reply, the respondents submitted that pursuant to the directions issued in judgment dated 20.11.2019, the petitioner s case was discussed in the 9th IT Grievance Redressal Committee meeting held on 02.12.2019. The minutes of this meeting have been placed on record as Annexure C-1. In respect of case of the petitioner, following has been observed therein:- iv. M/s Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd GSTIN- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rror evidencing any technical glitch faced by taxpayer were found. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents were directed to consider the case in light of the judgment delivered by the Punjab Haryana High Court in Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd s case, supra, as well as in light of communication dated 09.05.2019 placed on record of the writ petition by the respondents themselves. The consideration order is not in confirmity with the directions, hence, the respondents are liable to be proceeded for contempt. Whereas learned Senior Counsel for the respondents contended that the directions passed by the Court stands complied with. Case of the petitioner has been considered in accordance with law and rejected. Hen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect the authorities to consider , in a different category of cases. Where an authority vested with the power to decide a matter, fails to do so in spite of a request, the person aggrieved approaches the High Court, which in exercise of the power of judicial review, directs the authority to consider and decide the matter. In such cases, while exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court directs consideration without examining the facts or the legal question(s) involved and without recording any findings on the issues. The High Court may also direct the authority to consider afresh, where the authority had decided a matter without considering the relevant facts and circumstances, or by taking extraneous or irrelevant matters ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt with a fresh writ petition or file an application for fixing time for deciding the matter. 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. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law in case it still feels aggrieved by the order passed by the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
