S.K.M.Timber PVT. LTD. vs. Dipankar Bhaduri, Asst. Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise Burrabazar Div
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, S.K.K. Timber Pvt. Ltd., filed a contempt application (CPAN 61 of 2025) and a writ petition (WPA 26343 of 2024) before the High Court. The petitioner alleged that despite a previous order from the Court dated 29.10.2024, directing respondent no. 1 (Dipankar Bhaduri, Asst. Commissioner CGST and Central Excise) to hear the matter, the outcome of that hearing had not been communicated to the petitioner. The contempt application was filed due to the alleged non-compliance by respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 3 was present, but respondent no. 1 did not appear despite service.
Held
The Court considered the submission that an order was passed on 29.10.2024, directing respondent no. 1 to hear the matter. It was submitted that the hearing had occurred, but the result had not been communicated to the petitioner. In light of this, the Court disposed of the contempt application. The Court directed respondent no. 1 to communicate the outcome of the hearing in writing to the petitioner within 7 days from the date of the current order. This communication is to be the result of the hearing as per the Court's earlier direction on 29.10.2024. The Court also noted that parties could act on the server copy of the order and the petitioner was at liberty to serve a server copy on respondent no. 1 for immediate compliance. No specific finding on contempt was made, but directions were issued for compliance.
Key Issues
1. Whether respondent no. 1 has failed to comply with the order of this Court dated 29.10.2024, thereby constituting contempt of court? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the Court's order dated 29.10.2024 directed respondent no. 1 to hear the matter, and despite this hearing taking place, the result has not been communicated to the petitioner. This failure to communicate the outcome, as per the Court's direction, constitutes non-compliance and contempt. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue or state regarding the contempt application. However, the presence of respondent no. 3 and the counsel for the U.O.I. suggests their involvement in the proceedings.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025 Commissionerate & Ors.
With
WPA 26343 of 2024
S.K.M Timber Private Limited
Versus
Mr. Dipankar Bhaduri
Mr. P. Kothari
Mr. M. Chakraborty
…..for the petitioner
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sinha
Ms. Smita Das De
…..for the U.O.I
CPAN 61 of 2025 is taken up for hearing.
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 is present.
Affidavit-of-service filed be kept with the record.
In spite of being served there is no appearance on behalf of the alleged contemnor being the respondent no. 1 herein.
It is submitted that the order dated 29.10.2024 was passed by this Bench and according to the direction the matter was heard by the respondent no. 1 but till date the result of the said hearing has not been communicated to the petitioner herein.
2
Considering the said fact the contempt application is disposed of with the direction that the respondent no. 1 shall communicate the outcome of the hearing in writing to the petitioner within 7 days from the date of this order, which is the result of the said hearing as per direction of this Court on 29.10.2024. Parties to act on server copy and the petitioner is at liberty to serve a server copy of this order upon the respondent no. 1 for immediate compliance.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously after complying with all requisite formalities.
[Shampa Dutt (Paul). J]
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.