2019 (8) TMI 1353

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....br>MR S. V. BHATTI, J. For The Petitioner : ADVS. SRI. M. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SRI. K. JOHN MATHAI, SRI. JOSON MANAVALAN, SRI. KURYAN THOMAS AND SRI. PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM For The Respondent : GOVERNMENT PLEADER GP. DR. THUSHARA JAMES JUDGMENT This contempt case is filed complaining disobedience of directions issued in judgment dated 10/07/2018. The operative portion of the judgment against whi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent herein. Firstly, the respondents within the time stipulated by this Court, have not taken decision and secondly, decision if taken is required to be communicated as observed in the judgment, but not communicated and published. The continued inaction in this behalf in implementing the judgment dated 10/07/2018 amounts to willful disobedience of the directions issued in judgment dated 10/07/2018....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inutes, the ITGRC, after examination of System Logs categorized the petitioner's case under category B-2. Category B-2 cases are "Cases where the taxpayer attempted with no error or no valid error reported. As per system Logs, the taxpayer has tried for saving/submitting/Revision and there are no evidences of system errors in the log". As per the Minutes, the ITGRC after indepth consideration ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appropriate order from this Court. 5. The contention is noted and after perusing the record, this Court is of the view that the decision in terms of the judgment dated 10/07/2018 is taken in the meeting held on 12/02/2019. The outcome of the decision is that "the request of petitioner is rejected". Therefore, the petitioner is required to treat the decision taken on 12.02.2019 as a decision on ....