Court On Its Own Motion vs. D.C.Dey, Supdt. Of Sales Tax

Held

The Court held that the action of Respondent No. 3, Shri D.C. Dey, was in "utter defiance" and "open and arrogant flouting" of the Court's orders. The Court found his insistence on a 100% bank guarantee, even after being directed to release the goods upon furnishing 25% bank guarantee and 75% immovable security, to be a clear contempt of court. The Court noted that the officer's defense of waiting for written communication was baseless, as the order was communicated through his own counsel and a law officer. While ordinarily the contempt proceedings would be pursued vigorously, the Court accepted Shri Dey's plea for leniency and his unconditional apology. The contempt proceedings were closed upon payment of a personal cost of Rs. 10,000/- by Shri Dey to the applicant. Additionally, the applicant was granted four weeks to reply to the show-cause notice. Crucially, the Court lost faith in Respondent No. 3's impartiality and directed the Commissioner of Taxes to appoint an ad-hoc Assessing Officer to decide the proceedings arising from the show-cause notice.

Facts

The petitioner's vehicle and goods were detained by Respondent No. 3, the Superintendent of Sales Tax, Churaibari Enforcement Wing. The High Court, in an order dated December 18, 2020, directed the release of the goods and vehicle upon furnishing a bank guarantee of 25% of the disputed amount (Rs. 12,48,530/-) and the remaining 75% secured by immovable property or bank guarantee. The petitioner complied with these conditions by furnishing immovable security for 75% and a bank guarantee for 25% on December 23, 2020. However, Respondent No. 3 refused to release the goods, insisting on a 100% bank guarantee. This led to an interim application and subsequent orders from the Court expressing displeasure and initiating suo motu contempt proceedings against the officer.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of Respondent No. 3, the Superintendent of Sales Tax, in refusing to release the detained vehicle and goods despite the petitioner fulfilling the conditions stipulated in the High Court's order dated December 18, 2020, constitutes defiance of the Court's order and contempt of court, particularly in light of the subsequent directions issued on January 5, 2021? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they had complied with the Court's order by furnishing the required bank guarantee and immovable security. The refusal by Respondent No. 3 to release the goods was a direct violation of the Court's clear directions, leading to the filing of the interim application and contempt proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Sr. Government Advocate, initially stated that the concerned officer refused to release the goods without 100% bank guarantee, even after the Court's order. Later, the officer appeared in person and claimed he was waiting for written communication, a defense the Court found baseless. The revenue did not explicitly argue against the contempt charge but presented the officer's explanation.