M/S Maa Vindhya Vasini Constructions vs. Sujit Kumar, Cheif Executive Officer And 3 Others

Held

The Court found that, prima facie, a case of contempt had been made out against the opposite parties for their wilful disobedience of the order dated September 12, 2019. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's claim that the entire admissible GST amount had not been refunded despite the previous writ petition being disposed of on the assurance of refund within one month. However, instead of immediately initiating contempt proceedings, the Court decided to grant one more opportunity to the opposite parties to comply with the earlier order. The Court directed the opposite parties to comply with the order of the writ Court within two months from the date of production of a copy of the current order. The applicant was instructed to provide necessary envelopes for communication. The application was disposed of at this stage with liberty to the applicant to move a fresh application if the order remained uncomplied with within the stipulated time. The ratio decidendi is that while contempt may be prima facie established, a final opportunity for compliance may be granted before punitive action, especially if the non-compliance is not definitively and irrevocably established at the initial stage.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Maa Vindhya Vasini Constructions, filed a contempt application seeking to initiate proceedings against the Chief Executive Officer and three others for wilful disobedience of a previous order dated September 12, 2019. This prior order, passed in Writ-C No. 22751 of 2019, directed the respondent-competent authority to refund the admissible amount of Goods and Services Tax (GST) to the petitioner within one month. The petitioner had undertaken work contracts under the Pradhanmantri Gram Sarak Yojna (PMGSY). The original writ petition was disposed of based on the categorical statement by the Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the due amount of GST would be refunded within a month. The petitioner claims that despite this, the entire payment has not been ensured, relying on specific paragraphs of the contempt application and communications between PMGSY Circle, PWD, Lucknow, and the Executive Engineer, PWD, Hardoi.

Key Issues

1. Whether the opposite parties have committed civil contempt by wilfully disobeying the order dated September 12, 2019, passed in Writ-C No. 22751 of 2019, thereby violating Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that the opposite parties have wilfully disobeyed the High Court's order directing the refund of admissible GST. They argue that despite the previous writ petition being disposed of based on assurances of refund within a month, the entire payment has not been made. Reliance is placed on communications between various PWD authorities indicating a lack of compliance. The petitioner asserts that this constitutes civil contempt, punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the opposite parties in response to the contempt application. The Court notes that prima facie a case of contempt has been made out, implying the revenue/state did not effectively counter the petitioner's claims at this stage.