M/S Goldstar Suppliers Private Limited Through Its Director Asha Poddar vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

Held

The Court held that the filing of a review petition by JBVNL, approximately nine months after the judgment in W.P.(T) No. 4885 of 2022 and analogous cases, could not provide any excuse for non-compliance with the payment directions. The Court reiterated that the Supreme Court had dismissed JBVNL's Special Leave Petition after an adjudication on facts, and the High Court itself had indicated that it was not permissible to reopen the concluded issue. Consequently, the Court found that non-compliance with the directions issued in W.P.(T) No. 4885 of 2022 and analogous cases would prima facie constitute contempt of court. Exercising its powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Court directed the Registry to issue notice to the opposite parties (JBVNL officials) to file their show-cause reply within two weeks. The Court provided this limited time to the contemnors to avoid further statutory interest liability for the delay in payment of the GST component against indirect transactions. The matters were posted for May 10, 2024.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Techno Electric & Engg. Co. Ltd., filed multiple contempt cases (Contempt Case (Civil) Nos. 150, 152, 153, and 154 of 2024) against the State of Jharkhand and officials of Jharkhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (JBVNL). These contempt cases arose from the alleged non-compliance with a previous judgment of the High Court in W.P.(T) No. 4885 of 2022 and analogous cases. JBVNL had appealed the High Court's judgment by filing a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 35251 of 2023 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP on November 10, 2023, while leaving a larger issue of law open. JBVNL subsequently filed a review petition against the High Court's judgment, approximately nine months after it was rendered. The High Court noted that the filing of the review petition did not excuse JBVNL from complying with the earlier payment directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the filing of a review petition by JBVNL, approximately nine months after the judgment in W.P.(T) No. 4885 of 2022 and analogous cases, excuses them from complying with the payment directions issued by this Court. (Question of law) 2. Whether the non-compliance with the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(T) No. 4885 of 2022 and analogous cases constitutes contempt of court. (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that JBVNL's non-compliance with the High Court's order, despite the dismissal of their Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court, constituted contempt. They contended that the filing of a review petition, so long after the judgment, was not a valid excuse for non-payment. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for JBVNL sought an adjournment on the ground that a Civil Review Petition had been filed seeking review of the judgment rendered in W.P.(T) No. 4885 of 2022 and analogous cases.