Kay Dee Enterprises vs. Japinder Kaur, State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Kay Dee Enterprises, filed a contempt petition (COCP No. 521 of 2025) against the State Tax Officer, Japinder Kaur. The contempt petition arose from an alleged failure of the respondent to act on a request for necessary correction on the GST Portal. The petitioner's counsel submitted that if the petitioner makes the necessary correction online, the respondent would ensure it is done on the same day. The respondent's counsel, on instructions, undertook that if the petitioner applies online for correction, the same shall be done on the same day. The respondent also stated that the petitioner may file a necessary application/request by the next day. In light of this undertaking, the petitioner did not press the present petition.

Held

The Court noted the submissions made by both parties. The learned State counsel, on instructions from the concerned Tax Officer, undertook that if the petitioner applies online on the GST Portal for necessary correction, the same shall be done on the same day. Furthermore, the petitioner was given the liberty to file a necessary application/request by the next day. In view of this undertaking by the respondent(s), the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner does not press the present petition. Consequently, the contempt petition was dismissed as not pressed. The Court also recorded that the Rule stands discharged. The respondent was bound by her undertaking to the Court. The judgment explicitly stated that in case of default in adhering to the undertaking, the petitioner would be at liberty to seek revival of the contempt petition, and the defaulting officer would be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as costs from his/her own pocket in favour of the petitioner towards litigation expenses, on the first date of listing of the revival application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent, the State Tax Officer, failed to comply with a previous order or undertaking by not carrying out necessary corrections on the GST Portal for the petitioner, Kay Dee Enterprises, thereby constituting contempt of court. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner initiated the contempt proceedings alleging non-compliance by the respondent. The specific nature of the correction required and the prior order or undertaking are not detailed in the judgment, but the filing of the contempt petition implies a perceived breach. Revenue/State's Contention: The learned State counsel, on instructions, submitted that in case the petitioner applies online on the GST Portal for carrying out necessary correction, the same shall be done on the same day. The counsel further stated that the petitioner may file a necessary application/request by the next day. This indicates an acknowledgment of the need for action and a proposed resolution.