A.B.I.S. Exports INDIA Private Limited vs. Shri Bhuvanesh Yadav

Facts

ABIS Exports India Private Limited (Petitioner) filed a contempt petition against Shri Bhuvanesh Yadav, Secretary, Department of Commerce & Industries, Government of Chhattisgarh (Respondent), for willful disobedience of a High Court order dated 14.02.2020 in WPC No.614 of 2020. This order directed the Respondent to decide the Petitioner's representations (Ex.P/12 & P/13) within four months. The Petitioner had entered into an MoU in 2012 for establishing a food processing industry and was entitled to capital incentive subsidy based on VAT refunds under the Chhattisgarh Agro and Food Processing Industries Policy, 2012. The Petitioner received partial refunds until 30.06.2017. With the introduction of GST from 01.07.2017, replacing VAT, the Petitioner's claim for further refunds under the 2012 Policy was not considered, leading to the representations and subsequent litigation. The Petitioner had previously filed a contempt petition (C) No.788 of 2021, which was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one.

Held

The Court held that the Respondent has not willfully violated the order dated 14.02.2020 passed in WPC No.614 of 2020. The Court reasoned that the dispute arose due to the transition from VAT to GST on 01.07.2017, and the Policy, 2012, under which the Petitioner claimed benefits, was not amended to include GST refunds. The authority was therefore not competent to decide on GST refunds without a policy amendment. The decision on such an amendment rests solely with the Council of Ministers. The Court noted that proposals were presented to the Council of Ministers, but decisions were pending, with the matter still under consideration. The Court also dismissed the objection regarding the delay in filing the contempt petition, finding a recurring cause of action and the Respondent's efforts to address the issue through policy proposals. Consequently, the contempt petition was disposed of without finding willful disobedience. The Petitioner was granted liberty to make a fresh representation, and the authority was directed to make efforts for redressal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Respondent has willfully violated the order dated 14.02.2020 passed in WPC No.614 of 2020 by failing to decide the Petitioner's representations Ex.P/12 & P/13? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that there has been a willful violation of the court's order as the Respondent has been reluctant to decide their representations, despite repeated requests and the disposal of the writ petition directing such a decision. They sought directions for the Respondent to purge the contempt. Respondent's Contention: The Respondent contended that they are not competent to decide the Petitioner's representations as the issue involves a policy matter concerning the refund of GST in lieu of VAT, which requires a decision from the Council of Ministers. The Policy, 2012, only provides for VAT refund and was not amended for GST. Proposals were presented to the Council of Ministers multiple times but were returned for re-examination, indicating no willful disobedience but a procedural delay due to policy constraints. The Respondent also raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the contempt petition on grounds of delay.