R P M Distributors Through Its Proprietor Mr Mitesh Kumar Drolia vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, R.P.M. Distributors, filed a contempt case (Contempt Case (Cvl.) No. 663 of 2020) alleging willful violation of an order dated September 11, 2019, passed in W.P(T) No. 799 of 2019. The original writ petition directed the Nodal Officer to forward applications for transitional input tax credit to the Information Technology Grievances Redressal Committee. The petitioner claimed that the respondent-authorities failed to comply with this order. The contempt case was filed against the State of Jharkhand and specific officials of CGST and State Taxes.

Held

The High Court noted that the petitioner's counsel, on instructions, submitted that the contempt case had become infructuous because the respondent-authority had now passed the order. Consequently, the Court disposed of the contempt case as such. The specific order passed by the respondent-authority, which rendered the contempt case infructuous, is not detailed in the judgment. The reasoning is based on the petitioner's submission that compliance has now been achieved, thereby mooting the contempt proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that if a contempt petition becomes infructuous due to subsequent compliance by the contemnors, the court will dispose of the petition accordingly.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents have willfully violated the order dated September 11, 2019, passed in W.P(T) No. 799 of 2019, thereby constituting contempt of court? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner alleged willful violation of the court's order by the respondent-authorities, which necessitated the filing of the contempt petition. The petitioner's counsel, on instructions, submitted that the contempt case has now become infructuous. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions from the opposite parties regarding the alleged contempt. However, their compliance is implied by the petitioner's subsequent submission.