Ms Balaji Exim vs. Commissioner CGST And Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, MS BALAJI EXIM, filed a contempt petition (CONT.CAS(C) 1043/2023) before the Delhi High Court against the Commissioner CGST and another respondent. The petitioner alleged non-compliance by the respondent. During the proceedings on April 28, 2025, counsel for the petitioner stated that compliance had been achieved by the respondent. This was confirmed by the counsel for the respondent. A compilation of documents evidencing this compliance was presented to the Court.

Held

The Court noted that counsel for the petitioner stated that compliance had been done by the respondent, and this was confirmed by the respondent's counsel. A compilation of documents regarding the compliance was handed up in Court. The Court directed that this compilation be filed on record, with copies provided to the opposing side. Consequently, the petition was disposed of, acknowledging the stated compliance. The Court did not delve into the specifics of the original order that was allegedly not complied with, nor did it independently verify the compliance beyond the submissions of the parties.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent has complied with the previous order of the Court, as alleged by the petitioner and confirmed by the respondent. This issue turns on the factual determination of compliance with the Court's prior directive. Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that the respondent has now complied with the Court's order, rendering the contempt petition infructuous. Respondent: Confirmed that compliance has been achieved by them.