M/S Purwar Trading Company vs. Mr. Ravikant,Assistant Commissioner

Held

The Court held that there is no provision under the GST Act for deciding a representation in the manner sought by the petitioner. The writ Court's order had disposed of the writ petition with the understanding that the competent authority would pass a necessary order in accordance with law, and the petitioner would have liberty to pursue further remedies. The contempt application was dismissed because the Court found no specific obligation under the GST Act for the Assistant Commissioner to pass a separate adjudication order on the petitioner's representation as framed. The Court concluded that no case for contempt was made out as the original writ petition was disposed of with liberty to pursue remedies, and the alleged non-compliance was based on a misunderstanding of the statutory provisions regarding representations. The contempt application was therefore considered misconceived.

Facts

M/s Purwar Trading Company (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging an action under Section 129(1) of the GST Act, 2017. The petitioner had deposited the tax amount. Subsequently, the petitioner made a representation to the Assistant Commissioner, stating that the deposit was not voluntary and requested adjudication under Section 129(3) of the Act, which would allow them to file an appeal. The State Counsel assured the Court that the representation would be considered and an order passed in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue further remedies. The petitioner then filed a contempt application alleging non-compliance with the writ Court's order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ Court's order dated 04.08.2023, disposing of Writ Tax No. 932 of 2023, was complied with by the Opposite Party, Mr. Ravikant, Assistant Commissioner, by adjudicating the representation of the petitioner under Section 129(3) of the GST Act, 2017. Arguments for the Petitioner: The petitioner contended that the Opposite Party had failed to comply with the writ Court's order by not passing a necessary adjudication order on their representation, thereby violating the directions issued. Arguments for the Revenue/State: The Revenue/State, through the learned State Counsel, had previously assured the writ Court that the representation would be duly adverted to and a necessary order passed. In the contempt application, the Court found that there is no specific provision under the GST Act for deciding a representation in the manner sought by the petitioner, implying no obligation to adjudicate the representation itself as distinct from the original proceedings under Section 129.