Vivek Narsaria vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The Court noted that the contempt case was filed for willful and intentional disobedience of the order dated January 15, 2024. This order had directed the transfer of investigations to State Authorities and the immediate de-freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts. During the hearing of the contempt case, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the bank account of the petitioner had been defreezed. Based on this submission, the Court found that the primary grievance leading to the contempt petition had been addressed. Therefore, the Court concluded that the contempt case had become infructuous. The Court did not delve into the merits of the original contempt allegations or the specific actions of the Opposite Parties concerning the transfer of investigations, as the resolution of the bank account issue rendered the contempt proceedings moot.

Facts

The petitioner, Vivek Narsaria, filed a contempt case alleging willful disobedience of a High Court order dated January 15, 2024, passed in W.P.(T) No.4491 of 2023. The original writ petition concerned proceedings initiated by both State Authorities and the Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) for alleged wrong availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The High Court had directed that all investigations be forwarded to the State Authorities, who were to continue the proceedings, and also ordered the immediate de-freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts. The contempt case was filed because the petitioner believed these directions were not followed. However, during the hearing of the contempt case, it was submitted that the petitioner's bank account had since been defreezed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Opposite Parties have willfully and intentionally disobeyed the order dated January 15, 2024, passed in W.P.(T) No.4491 of 2023, thereby constituting contempt of court? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the contempt case was filed due to the alleged willful and intentional disobedience of the High Court's order. However, during the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the bank account of the petitioner had been defreezed, rendering the contempt case infructuous. Opposite Parties' Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Opposite Parties in response to the contempt allegations. The outcome indicates that the primary concern regarding the bank account attachment was resolved.