M/S Jvg Super Cargo Service Limited vs. Shri Raj Kamal Bishnoi Assistant Commissioner, Anti-Evasion

Held

The Court declined to entertain the contempt petition for multiple reasons. Firstly, the status quo order was passed on the first date of hearing when the Department's counsel had appeared. Secondly, the Special Appeal in which the order was passed had been disposed of by a separate order on the same day. Thirdly, the petitioner did not claim ownership of the goods, but only transporter status. Lastly, the Court reasoned that if the order of confiscation and penalty were to be set aside, the rightful owner of the goods, whether the petitioner or another party, could claim the amount realized by the Department from the sale of the goods. Therefore, the contempt petition was disposed of without delving into the merits of the alleged violation.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s JVG Super Cargo Service Limited, filed a contempt petition alleging that GST authorities violated a status quo order passed by the High Court on July 3, 2020. The petitioner contended that despite the order, the GST authorities proceeded with the auction of confiscated goods. The auction itself occurred on July 2, 2020, but the sale was completed with formalities much later, after the status quo order. The petitioner identified himself as a transporter, not the owner of the goods. The respondents were the Assistant Commissioner, Anti-Evasion, and the State of Rajasthan.

Key Issues

1. Whether the GST authorities flouted the status quo order dated 03.07.2020 passed by this Court, thereby committing contempt of court? The petitioner argued that the completion of sale formalities after the status quo order constituted a violation. The respondents' arguments are not recorded in the judgment. The court considered that the status quo order was passed on the first date of hearing when the department's counsel appeared, and that the special appeal in which the order was passed has since been disposed of. Additionally, the petitioner did not claim ownership of the goods, but only transporter status. The court also noted that if the confiscation and penalty orders are set aside, the owner of the goods can claim the sale proceeds.