M/S Mansoori Enterprises, Thru. Its Proprietor Mohd. Shakeel vs. Mr. Arvind Kumar, Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax/ Cental Excise Lucknow

Held

The Court held that to establish contempt, there must be a deliberate and wilful disobedience and defiance of a judgment and order passed by the Court. Upon perusal of the corrigendum, the Court found that prima facie, no deliberate and wilful disobedience and defiance of the judgment and order dated 23.02.2024 was made out. The Court reasoned that even if the corrigendum was issued without jurisdiction or beyond the time limit, it is open for the petitioner to challenge that order before the appropriate court in appropriate proceedings. Merely issuing a corrigendum does not, in itself, constitute deliberate and wilful disobedience of the Court's order. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

M/s Mansoori Enterprises, through its Proprietor Mohd. Shakeel (the applicant), filed a contempt application alleging wilful disobedience of a previous High Court order dated 23.02.2024. That order had quashed an earlier order dated 20.11.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax/Central Excise, Lucknow (the opposite party), for being without jurisdiction, and permitted the respondents to proceed afresh. The applicant contended that the respondents issued a corrigendum dated 18.03.2024, which was also without jurisdiction and beyond the prescribed time limit for issuing an order, thus violating the previous judgment. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history involves a writ petition (Writ Tax No. 35 of 2024) that led to the order of 23.02.2024, followed by the contempt application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the issuance of a corrigendum dated 18.03.2024 by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax/Central Excise, Lucknow, constitutes a deliberate and wilful disobedience and defiance of the High Court's order dated 23.02.2024, which had quashed the previous order dated 20.11.2023 and allowed the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law? Contentions: Petitioner/Applicant (M/s Mansoori Enterprises): Argued that the corrigendum dated 18.03.2024 was patently without jurisdiction and did not adhere to the prescribed time limit of three years for issuing an order, thereby constituting deliberate and wilful disobedience of the Court's judgment. The applicant relied on the fact that the corrigendum was issued subsequent to the Court's order quashing the original order. Revenue/Opposite Party (Mr. Arvind Kumar, Assistant Commissioner): The judgment records no specific arguments made by the opposite party. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the issuance of a corrigendum, even if flawed, does not automatically equate to wilful contempt.