2024 (3) TMI 788 - HC - GST

Contempt Petition Dismissed: GST Case Resolves with Clear Path for Further Legal Challenge Under Existing Statutory Provisions

Ms Purwar Trading Company Versus Ms Ravikant, Assistant Commissioner State Tax

HC dismissed contempt petition in GST case. Competent authority decided representation as per earlier HC direction. Court noted no contempt was ... Dismissal of contempt petition - appellant submits that the contempt bench has dismissed the contempt petition being not maintainable by observing that there is no provision under the G.S.T. Act for deciding the representation - HELD THAT:- After hearing learned counsel for the parties, independent of observation made by contempt bench that there is no provision under the Act, 2017 for deciding the representation, we find that the representation of the petitioner in terms of Writ Court's order dated 4.8.2023 stand decided by the competent authority by passing the order dated 21.9.2023 and, therefore, on the face of it, no contempt is made out as the remedy before the petitioner is to challenge the said order in accordance with law. Petition dismissed. Issues involved: Contempt petition under G.S.T. Act for representation decision u/s 129(3) and scope of High Court's power for contempt.Contempt petition under G.S.T. Act for representation decision u/s 129(3): The appellant had filed a writ petition regarding a representation made under Section 129(1) of the G.S.T. Act 2017, where the petitioner deposited tax and requested adjudication by the competent authority u/s 129(3). The High Court directed the competent authority to pass necessary orders in accordance with the law. Subsequently, the competent authority passed an order stating compliance with the High Court's direction and concluding the proceedings under the Act, 2017. The appellant cited a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the limited scope of contempt powers of the courts. The contempt bench dismissed the contempt petition, noting the absence of a provision in the G.S.T. Act for deciding such representations. The respondent submitted that the representation had been decided, and the remedy for the appellant was to challenge the order if deemed necessary, rather than filing a contempt appeal. The Court observed that since the representation had been decided by the competent authority in compliance with the High Court's order, no contempt was established, and the appellant's remedy was to challenge the order in accordance with the law. The petition was dismissed with liberty granted to the appellant.Scope of High Court's power for contempt: The Court highlighted the limited and special power of the High Courts to punish for contempt, as stated in a Supreme Court judgment. It was emphasized that courts should not exceed the boundaries of the order alleged to have been violated or delve into matters not addressed in the judgment or order being flouted. Despite the contempt bench's observation regarding the absence of a specific provision in the Act for deciding representations, the Court found that the competent authority had indeed decided the petitioner's representation as per the High Court's order. Therefore, the Court concluded that no contempt was established, and the appellant's recourse was to challenge the order if necessary, rather than seeking contempt action. The petition was dismissed, granting the appellant the liberty to challenge the order in accordance with the law.