M/S.Selfshine Polymers INDIA PVT.LTD. vs. Mr.V.K.Sunilkumar - Kerala High Court, 21 August 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI WEDNE AY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1941 Con.Case(C).No.1052 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 21287/2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21287/2018(I) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER: M/S.SELFSHINE POLYMERS INDIA PVT.LTD., GROUND, X/139C, SUBI PALACE, MAIN ROAD, THIRUVILWAMALA, THRISSUR- 680588, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAING DIRECTOR, MR.K.MURALIMOHANAN, S/O.P.KRISHNAN KUTTY NAIR, AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT AISWARYA, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR- 680586. BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RESPONDENT: MR.V.K.SUNILKUMAR, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), PRESENTLY WORKING AS THE NODAL OFFICER FOR THE STATE GST, GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695002. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER GP. DR. THUSHARA JAMES THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Con.Case(C).No.1052 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 21287/2018 2 JUDGMENT This contempt case is filed complaining disobedience of directions issued in judgment dated 10/07/2018. The operative portion of the judgment against which, the disobedience is complained reads as follows: “So, in this case also, the petitioner may apply to the additional sixth respondent, the Nodal Officer. The petitioner applying, the Nodal Officer will look into the issue and facilitate the petitioner's uploading FORM GST TRAN-1, without reference to the time-frame. Ordered so. I may also observe that if the petitioner applies within two weeks after receiving this judgment, the Nodal Officer will consider and take steps within a week thereafter. If the uploading of FORM GST TRAN-1 is not possible for reasons not attributable to the petitioner, the authority will also enable him to take credit of the input tax available at the time of migration.”

Briefly stated, the petitioner has two complaints to make against the respondent 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

Con.Case(C).No.1052 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 21287/2018 3 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 in writ petition No. 21287/2018. 3. The respondent filed counter affidavit and adverting to the steps taken by the respondent in terms of judgment, the reply reads thus:

“4. I respectfully submit that in compliance of the directions of this Hon'ble Court following the Circular the required particulars were submitted by the petitioner in the prescribed format to me on 04/08/2018. After the office procedure I took up the writ petitioner's case with GSTN in the prescribed proforma. Theof the email sent to GSTN is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R1(a).

It is submitted that the ITGRC is the apex decision making body for considering IT Glitch grievances. The 4th meeting of the ITGRC held on 12.02.2019 considered the petitioner's grievance. As per the minutes, 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 of the petitioner's case, decided not to allow filing of TRAN-1 as the system logs clearly evidenced that there was no IT-Glitch in the case of the petitioner. Theof the minutes along with the relevant pages of Annexures therein is produced herewith and marked as

Con.Case(C).No.1052 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 21287/2018 4 Annexure R1(b).”

The respondent has annexed to the affidavit, Ext.R1(b) minutes of 4th meeting of IT grievance redressal committee (IT-GRC) held on 12/02/2019 at Kalpavriksha, North Block, New Delhi. The case of petitioner covers the decisions taken in the meeting held on 12/02/2019. The complaint of the petitioner is that the decision taken is required to be communicated pursuant to the meeting held on 12.02.2019 but is not communicated and therefore, the disobedience is a continuous cause of action warranting appropriate order from this Court.

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 the request of the petitioner and it so challenges the decisions as provided for by law. The reply of respondent does not warrant continuation of contempt proceedings. Hence, the contempt case is dismissed. The respondent, since has

Con.Case(C).No.1052 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 21287/2018 5 taken the stand that Ext.R1(b) is the decision in this behalf, the petitioner is given liberty to challenge the decision taken on 12.02.2019 in accordance with law. no objection in far or contend against such challenge is allowed to be raised by the respondent. With the above observation, this contempt case is dismissed. S.V.BHATTI N //// PA to Judge JUDGE

Con.Case(C).No.1052 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 21287/2018 6 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A THEOF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.07.2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C)NO.21287 OF 2018. ANNEXURE B THEOF REQUEST LETTER NO.SPIL/GST/182/18-19 DATED 01.08.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT (WITHOUT ENCLOSURES).