STAY GRANTED BY HIGH COURT ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY RAISED SAME DEMAND

[gunda ashok kumar]

SIR,

HIGH COURT ALREADY HAS GRANTED STAY AND ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY HAS RAISED THE DEMAND ON WHICH HIGH COURT STAY ORDER AND PASSED ADJUDICATING ORDERS WHICH SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW

[Shilpi Jain]

Is the stay granted in your own matter?

[KASTURI SETHI]

If the issue is the same, the period is the same and the party is the same, it is contempt of court. It is judicial indiscipline. See the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamlakshi  Finance Corporation Ltd.  

UNION OF INDIA Versus KAMLAKSHI FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. - 1991 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT

[Padmanathan KV]

The information is insufficient to give any comments. Kindly elaborate the whole issue.

[KASTURI SETHI]

It appears that the querist is indifferent towards the query.

AI Summary

Court-ordered stay: pursuing the same tax demand may amount to contempt if issue, period and party coincide.
A High Court stay in a GST matter was in place, yet the adjudicating authority issued a demand and passed orders on the same subject; if the issue, period and party are identical to those covered by the stay, pursuing the demand may constitute contempt of court and judicial indiscipline, though a precise determination requires verification of the stay's scope and the identity of the matters and parties involved.