Post-hearing arrest steps may trigger contempt scrutiny, while GST objections under Rule 159(5) require a hearing and speaking order.

Where arrest steps are taken after the matter has already been argued, the court may treat the sequence as prima facie capable of interfering with the administration of justice and may issue notice for contempt. Separately, objections or a representation under Rule 159(5) of the Maharashtra GST Rules must be considered after hearing the taxpayer and disposed of by a speaking order before further coercive action. The text emphasises procedural fairness in GST recovery matters and the potential contempt implications of post-hearing enforcement steps.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the arrest steps taken after the hearing, on the facts placed before the Court, warranted issuance of notice for possible contempt; and (ii) whether the petitioner's objections/representation under Rule 159(5) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 required hearing and a speaking order before further action.

Issue (i): whether the arrest steps taken after the hearing, on the facts placed before the Court, warranted issuance of notice for possible contempt.

Analysis: The arrest memo and the sequence of events disclosed that authorisation for arrest was obtained and acted upon on the same day when the matter had already been argued before the Court. On that prima facie material, the Court found that the conduct could amount to interference with the administration of justice and could attract contempt jurisdiction. The concerned officer accepted notice and was permitted to file a reply.

Conclusion: Notice to show cause for initiation of contempt proceedings was issued.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioner's objections/representation under Rule 159(5) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 required hearing and a speaking order before further action.

Analysis: The Court directed that the Commissioner must first consider and dispose of the petitioner's objections/representation dated 11 December 2024 under Rule 159(5). The petitioner was required to be given a hearing and the decision was to be by a speaking order, reflecting compliance with procedural fairness before the matter was listed again.

Conclusion: The objections/representation had to be decided after hearing the petitioner by a speaking order.

Final Conclusion: The Court granted interim procedural relief to the petitioner by requiring prior adjudication of the objections and simultaneously initiated contempt notice proceedings against the concerned officers on a prima facie view of possible interference with justice.

Ratio Decidendi: Where arrest or coercive action appears to have been taken after the Court had already heard the matter, the Court may prima facie treat such conduct as capable of interfering with the administration of justice and, independently, require statutory objections affecting coercive recovery to be decided after hearing by a speaking order.

---