Ms Bhardwaj Construction Company P LTD Through Its Director Mr C M Riaz Ahmad vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Bhardwaj Construction Company (P) Ltd., filed a contempt petition against the State of Jharkhand and Shri Arun Kumar Singh, Secretary, Water Resources Department. The contempt petition alleged non-compliance with an order previously passed in W.P.(T) No. 5045 of 2018. The State's counsel submitted that the petitioner's representation was considered, and a decision was taken, as detailed in paragraph 6 of the show-cause notice. This decision involved the Executive Engineer seeking tax receipts for labor engaged after July 1, 2017, and excise duty/royalty receipts for materials used, to calculate the tax difference between the VAT and GST systems. The petitioner's counsel argued that this decision did not comply with the earlier court order and prayed for contempt proceedings. The Court noted that the previous order in W.P.(T) No. 5045 of 2018 had granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the authority's order regarding his representation before the appropriate forum.

Held

The Court held that there were no cogent grounds to entertain the prayer for initiation of contempt proceedings. The Court found that the order passed by the authority was in compliance with the earlier order of the High Court in W.P.(T) No. 5045 of 2018. The previous order had explicitly reserved liberty for the petitioner to challenge the authority's decision regarding his representation before the appropriate forum. Since the authority had passed an order, and the petitioner had the liberty to pursue further remedies, the Court concluded that the contempt petition was not maintainable. The Court did not decide on the merits of the tax calculation or the difference between VAT and GST, as the primary issue was the alleged non-compliance with the previous court order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the decision taken by the authority, as detailed in the show-cause notice, constitutes compliance with the order passed by this Court in W.P.(T) No. 5045 of 2018, thereby precluding contempt proceedings? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the decision communicated by the opposite parties was not in compliance with the order passed in W.P.(T) No. 5045 of 2018 and therefore, contempt proceedings should be initiated against the opposite parties. Revenue/State's Contention: The State submitted that the petitioner's representation was considered and a decision was taken by the concerned authority. This decision, as outlined in the show-cause notice, involved seeking specific tax receipts to ascertain the difference between the VAT and GST systems, with the understanding that any difference would be paid after obtaining approval from competent authorities. The State contended that this action was in compliance with the earlier court order.