Joint Commissioner Of State Tax Raigad Nodal 1 vs. Ma Agro Proprietor Mr Ashfak Jafar Shekhani

Held

The Court noted the categorical submission made by the learned Advocate General for the Respondents that the order dated December 9, 2025, would be complied with within two weeks by making the refund. The Court accepted this submission and closed the Contempt Petition. The Court further clarified that the refund made to the Petitioner, in terms of the order dated December 9, 2025, would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Department to proceed in the matter, in accordance with law, based on the notice issued under Section 108 of the GST Act. The Court found that the Respondents' commitment to comply with the refund order, coupled with the clarification regarding their rights in the ongoing proceedings, resolved the contempt issue. The Interim Application was also disposed of in view of these observations. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The Petitioner, M.A. Agro, filed a Contempt Petition alleging willful disobedience of a High Court order dated December 9, 2025. This order directed the Respondents, including the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, to refund Rs. 7,27,83,010/- along with interest to the Petitioner, following the dismissal of an appeal by the Department. The Respondents, through the Advocate General, submitted that a notice under Section 108 of the GST Act was issued by the Revisional Authority to reopen the matter due to the detection of fraudulent transactions connected to the Petitioner. This fact was not brought to the Court's attention when the December 9, 2025 order was passed. The Department proposed to comply with the refund order without prejudice to their rights in the proceedings initiated under Section 108 of the GST Act. The Petitioner's counsel had no objection to this proposal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Respondents have willfully disobeyed the order dated December 9, 2025, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 15764 of 2025, directing a refund of Rs. 7,27,83,010/- with interest, thereby constituting contempt of court? The Petitioner argued that the Respondents' failure to issue the refund as directed by the Court's order dated December 9, 2025, amounts to willful disobedience and contempt. The Petitioner relied on the clear mandate of the previous order. The Respondents, represented by the Advocate General, contended that while they intend to comply with the refund order, certain subsequent developments, specifically the detection of fraudulent transactions and the issuance of a notice under Section 108 of the GST Act by the Revisional Authority, necessitate that the compliance be without prejudice to their rights. They argued that the Court was not apprised of these material facts when the December 9, 2025 order was passed, and therefore, the contempt should not be pressed in light of their commitment to comply with the refund order while pursuing the reopened proceedings.