M/S Unicharm INDIA PVT LTD. vs. Ajeet Kumar Additional Commissioner Of CGST
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Unic Charm India Pvt. Ltd., filed a contempt petition under Sections 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. They alleged willful non-compliance of an order dated 25.07.2024 passed by this Court in WP-16157-2024. The order directed that in urgent list cases, notices should be accepted, and respondents should refrain from recovery where no final order has been passed. If a final order has been passed, proceedings under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act could continue, but the final order should not be given effect to. The petitioner contended that despite the interim order being passed in the presence of the respondent's counsel, the respondent proceeded to pass a final order dated 16.08.2024, showing disrespect to the Court's order.
Held
The Court held that neither the petitioner nor their representative served a copy of the interim order dated 25.07.2024 upon the respondent, nor was the respondent present at the time of the hearing on 16.08.2024. Consequently, it could not be opined that the respondent acted in willful neglect or disobedience of the interim order. The Court noted that the respondent, who joined proceedings through Video Conferencing, tendered an unconditional apology and undertook to be more vigilant in the future. The Head Quarter, CGST, Gurugram, was directed to be careful in future about conveying such interim orders to the officers concerned for appropriate compliance. The apology tendered by the respondent was accepted. The Court found no willful disobedience and discharged the rule.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondent acted in willful disobedience of the interim order dated 25.07.2024 passed by this Court in WP-16157-2024, by passing a final order dated 16.08.2024. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the interim order was passed in the presence of the respondent's counsel. Despite this, the respondent finalized proceedings by passing an order dated 16.08.2024, demonstrating disrespect to the Court's order. Respondent's arguments: The respondent, represented by Mr. Ajeet Kumar, Deputy Commissioner, CGST, Rohtak, submitted that while the interim order was passed in the presence of the revenue authorities' counsel, it was not served upon the respondent, nor was the respondent present at the time of passing the order dated 16.08.2024. The respondent claimed it was a bonafide mistake due to a communication gap between the Head Office Legal Branch and the concerned officer, and therefore, there was no willful disobedience. The respondent tendered an unconditional apology.
Sections Cited
Section 73(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
COCP-40 159 IN
M/s Unic
Ajeet Ku
CORAM
Present :
HARKES
the Cont initiated complian 16157-20 085-2024 (O&M) [1] THE HIGH COURT OF PUN CHANDIG
CO
Da
charm India Pvt. Ltd.
VERSUS umar, Additional Commissio
: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H : Mr. Surjeet Bhadu, Advoca Mr. Veer Singh, Advocate
Mr. Saurabh Goel, Sr. Sta for the respondent.
**** SH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of present petition tempt of Courts Act, 1971, against the respondents on nce of order dated 25.07.2024
The relevant part thereof
“It is also direc listed in the urgent lis be accepted and the shall apply with rega from making any rec been passed, and in been passed, the pro the CGST may go passed.
All the respec
NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
OCP No. 4085-2024 (O&M) ate of Decision: 03.04.2025
...Petitioner oner of CGST
...Respondent HARKESH MANUJA ate and for the petitioner. nding counsel, CGST filed under Sections 10 & 12 proceedings are sought to account of alleged willful no 4 passed by this Court in CW f is extracted hereunder:- cted that in the cases which a st category, notices are directed interim order in the same ter ard to refraining the responde covery where the final order h n case where final order has oceedings under Section 73 (1) on but final order shall not ctive counsel shall be inform
ts 2 of be on- WP- are d to rms ents has not ) of be med SANJAY GUPTA 2025.04.04 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
COCP-40 2. interim o learned despite responde 16.08.20 25.07.20 3. of the re Commiss through interim o learned neither th petitione 16.08.20 dated 25 terms of part and the respo though b Head O commun concerne 4. through t 5. order dat Gurugram office an 085-2024 (O&M) [2] accordingly.”
. Learned counsel for the pe order dated 25.07.2024 wa counsel appearing on beha the restraint order about ent went on to decide the 024, thereby showing disresp 024 passed by this Court. On the other hand, learne espondent along with respo sioner, CGST, Rohtak, who Video Conferencing, subm order dated 25.07.2024 wa counsel appearing for the he said order was served upo r was present at the time 024 before him so as to make 5.07.2024 and therefore, the decision dated 16.08.2024 w thus, there is no willful diso ondent submits that the inter brought to the notice of the L Office, CGST, Gurugram, ication gap on the part of ed. I have heard learned cou the records of the case. A perusal of the record ted 25.07.2024 was conveyed m, but there was some misco nd the officer concerned whic
etitioner submits that though t as passed in the presence lf of the respondent, howev t finalization of proceedin case by passing order dat pect to the interim order dat ed counsel appearing on beh ondent-Mr.Ajeet Kumar, Dep o has joined the proceedin mits that though undispute as passed in the presence revenue authorities, howev on the respondent; nor even t of passing of the order dat e him aware of the interim ord e finalization of proceedings was a bonafide mistake on obedience. Learned counsel rim order dated 25.07.2024 w Legal Branch at Head Quart however, there was som f Head Office and the offic unsel for the parties and go shows that though the inter d to Legal Branch, Head Offic ommunication on the part of t ch resulted into passing of t the of ver, gs, ted ted half uty ngs dly of ver, the ted der in his for was ter/ me cer one rim ce, the the SANJAY GUPTA 2025.04.04 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
COCP-40 order dat 6. interim o represen thus, it c or willfu Besides through V and has circumsta 7. directed final orde 8. disposed 9. 10. stand dis
20 sanjay
085-2024 (O&M) [3] ted 16.08.2024. Admittedly, neither the order dated 25.07.2024 upon ntative was present at the tim cannot be opined that the res l disobedience of the inte this, even the respondent w Video conferencing has tend also undertaken to remain m ances, the apology tendered At this stage, the Head to be careful in future about ers to the officer concerned fo In view of the above, th d of. Rule discharged. Pending miscellaneous a sposed of.
025
(
Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable ?
petitioner served copy of t n the respondent; nor even e of hearing on 16.08.2024 a spondent acted in willful negl erim order dated 25.07.202 who has joined the proceedin dered his unconditional apolo more vigilant in future. In su by the respondent is accepted Quarter, CGST, Gurugram conveying such interim orde or appropriate compliance. e present contempt petition application(s), if any, shall a
HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE ed ? Yes/No Yes/No the its and ect 24. ngs ogy uch d. is ers/ is lso SANJAY GUPTA 2025.04.04 18:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.