Mr. Pramod Dandaich vs. Vivek Pandey The Commissioner & Anr.

Held

The Court noted the submissions from both sides. The petitioner's counsel stated that the petitioner had commenced downloading the statutory forms and required approximately one week to complete the process. The respondent's counsel assured that the portal would be kept open to facilitate the download of the remaining forms. In light of these statements, the petitioner's counsel informed the Court that they had instructions not to press the present petition further. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition as not pressed. No specific findings on contempt were made as the petition was withdrawn by the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, Mr. Pramod Dandaich, filed a contempt petition alleging he was unable to download statutory forms from the online portal of the respondent, the Commissioner & another (GST Officer). The respondent contended that outstanding demands against the petitioner prevented the system from allowing form downloads. However, the respondent's counsel stated that the IT Department had made a special exception, modified the system, and enabled the petitioner to download the forms. The petitioner's counsel confirmed that the download process had commenced and approximately one week was needed to complete it. The respondent's counsel assured the portal would remain open for the remaining downloads.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent's actions or inactions constituted contempt of court, given the petitioner's inability to download statutory forms from the online portal. (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the implementation of statutory procedures and potential non-compliance with implied court directions or statutory obligations). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the inability to download statutory forms from the respondent's online portal hindered their statutory compliances, implying a failure on the part of the respondent to provide the necessary infrastructure or facilitate the process, potentially leading to contempt. Respondent's contention: The respondent argued that the inability to download forms was due to outstanding demands against the petitioner, and that a special exception had been made by the IT Department to modify the system, enabling the petitioner to download the forms. They submitted that the portal would be kept open for the petitioner to complete the download process.