Macleods Pharmaceutical Ltd. v. Prakash Kumar and another
[Citation -2020-LL-1110-44]

Citation 2020-LL-1110-44
Appellant Name Macleods Pharmaceutical Ltd.
Respondent Name Prakash Kumar and another
Relevant Act SGST
Date of Order 10/11/2020
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags goods and services tax • credit balance • cenvat credit

IN HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.2 of 2020 Decided on: 10th November, 2020 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . Macleods Pharmaceutical Ltd. ..Petitioner .P Versus H Prakash Kumar and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram of Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For Petitioner: rt Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Advocate. For Respondent: Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Senior Advocate ou with Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. (Through Video Conference) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ C Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge (Oral) petitioner asserts that judgment dated h 20.11.2019 passed by Division Bench of this Court in ig CWP No.1551 of 2018, titled Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Versus Union of India & others, has been wilfully disobeyed H by respondents, hence, instant contempt petition has been preferred. 2. aforementioned writ petition was filed by petitioner with submissions that in June, 2017, 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see order? ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2021 12:25:37 :::HCHP 2 petitioner-company had CENVAT Credit balance of Central Taxes amounting to Rs.7,51,33,423/-. Petitioner had filed another TRAN-1 form for CENVAT Credit of Rs.14,71,031/-, . .P which was made admissible and credited to its Electronic Credit Ledger account on 26.10.2017. It was further H submitted that company could not amend TRAN-1 form as per provisions of Goods and Services Tax Act (in of short GST Act ). Therefore, direction was sought to be issued to respondents to consider case of rt petitioner-company for amendment of TRAN-1 form. In support of prayer, learned counsel for petitioner had ou relied upon judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court delivered in CWP No.30949 of 2018 (O&M), titled Adfert C Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & Ors. During hearing of writ petition, learned h Senior Counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 had placed on ig record communication dated 09.05.2019, informing Court that consideration of TRAN-1 form of petitioner- H company was under process and it was to be considered as per provisions of amended GST Act. Considering submissions of parties, writ petition was disposed of with following directions:- ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2021 12:25:37 :::HCHP 3 5. In light of judgment and communication referred to above, writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondents to consider case of petitioner-Company for amendment of TRAN-1 form and pass appropriate orders within period of three weeks from today. . Alleging that case of petitioner for .P amendment of TRAN-1 form was not considered and no H orders were passed in case of petitioner, this contempt petition was instituted. of 3. In their reply, respondents submitted that pursuant to directions issued in judgment dated 20.11.2019, petitioner s case was discussed in 9 th IT rt Grievance Redressal Committee meeting held on ou 02.12.2019. minutes of this meeting have been placed on record as Annexure C-1. In respect of case of C petitioner, following has been observed therein:- iv. M/s Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd GSTIN- 02AAACM4100C1ZL, CWP 1551/2018: Filed TRAN 1 on h 09.11.2017 but as per taxpayer CENVAT Credit of 7.51 Cr did not reflect in TRAN-1. It was mentioned in letter of ig jurisdictional tax authority letter that GSTN vide mail dated 06.08.2018 had communicated to Commissionerate that TRAN-1 was successfully submitted on 26.10.2017 and 27.11.2017 but as per logs taxpayer had filed 0 (zero) in H disputed field instead of 7.51 Cr and no logs of error evidencing any technical glitch faced by taxpayer were found. Therefore, Committee observed that case was not as per mechanism/process approved in 8th ITGRC for non- technical cases. After discussion and deliberation committee found that these cases did not seem to be qualified within parameters recommended for considering reopening of portal as per extended scope of ITGRC in 32nd GST Council and subsequently mechanism/process approved in 8th ITGRC. ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2021 12:25:37 :::HCHP 4 committee thus found that petitioner s case did not qualify parameters for considering reopening of . portal and that as per logs, taxpayer had filed 0 .P (zero) in disputed field and no logs of error evidencing any technical glitch faced by taxpayer were found. On H basis of these minutes of meeting, order was passed on of 06.01.2020 to effect that case of petitioner for amendment of TRAN-1 form could not be accepted due to fact that as per logs, taxpayer had filed 0 (zero) in rt disputed field and no logs of error evidencing any ou technical glitch faced by taxpayer were found. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended C that respondents were directed to consider case in light of judgment delivered by Punjab & Haryana h High Court in Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd s case, supra, as ig well as in light of communication dated 09.05.2019 placed on record of writ petition by respondents H themselves. consideration order is not in confirmity with directions, hence, respondents are liable to be proceeded for contempt. Whereas learned Senior Counsel for respondents contended that directions passed by Court stands complied with. Case of petitioner has ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2021 12:25:37 :::HCHP 5 been considered in accordance with law and rejected. Hence, no contempt is made out. 5. perusal of judgment clearly indicates that . .P respondents were directed to consider case of petitioner for amendment of TRAN-1 form and to pass H appropriate orders thereupon keeping in view judgment in Adfert Technologies Pvt. Ltd s case, supra and of communication dated 09.05.2019. respondents considered judgment, communication and other rt related aspects as per their wisdom and took decision on 02.12.2019 as communicated vide letter dated 06.01.2020 ou for not permitting petitioner to amend TRAN-1 form. Whether decision is in consonance with law or not is C not to be gone into while deciding contempt petition. It will be appropriate to refer here (2006) 3 SCC 674, titled h A.P. SRTC and others Versus G. Srinivas Reddy and ig others, elaborating implication of directions given by Court to consider case. Relevant paras are extracted H hereunder:- 14. We may, in this context, examine significance and meaning of direction given by court to consider case. When court directs authority to consider , it requires authority to apply its mind to facts and circumstances of case and then take decision thereon in accordance with law. There is reason for large number of writ petitions filed in High Courts being disposed of with direction to ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2021 12:25:37 :::HCHP 6 consider claim/case/representation of petitioner(s) in writ petitions. 16. High Courts also direct authorities to consider , in different category of cases. Where authority vested with power to decide matter, fails to do so in spite of request, person aggrieved approaches High Court, which in . exercise of power of judicial review, directs authority to .P consider and decide matter. In such cases, while exercising power of judicial review, High Court directs consideration without examining facts or legal question(s) involved and without recording any findings on H issues. High Court may also direct authority to consider afresh, where authority had decided matter without considering relevant facts and circumstances, or by taking extraneous or irrelevant matters into consideration. of In such cases also, High Court may not examine validity or tenability of claim on merits, but require authority to do so. 17. Where High Court finds decision-making process erroneous and records its findings as to manner in which rt decision should be made, and then directs authority to consider matter, authority will have to consider and decide matter in light of its findings or observations of ou court. But where High Court without recording any findings, or without expressing any view, merely directs authority to consider matter, authority will have to consider matter in accordance with law, with reference to facts and circumstances of case, its power not being circumscribed by any observations or findings of court. C 20. Therefore, while disposing of writ petitions with direction to consider , there is need for High Court to make direction clear and specific. order should clearly indicate whether High Court is recording any finding about h entitlement of petitioner to relief or whether petition is being disposed of without examining claim on merits. ig court should also normally fix time-frame for consideration and decision. If no time-frame is fixed and if authority does not decide matter, direction of court becomes virtually infructuous as aggrieved petitioner will H have to come again to court with fresh writ petition or file application for fixing time for deciding matter. direction issued to respondents in writ petition was to consider case of petitioner and to decide it in light of judgment and communication referred to above. Pursuant to directions, ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2021 12:25:37 :::HCHP 7 respondents considered and decided case of petitioner. decision has been taken, therefore, it cannot be said respondents have flouted judgment passed . .P by this Court. Consequently, no contempt is made out and same is dismissed. Notice discharged. However, liberty H is reserved to petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law in case it still feels aggrieved by of order passed by respondents pursuant to judgment in CWP No.1551 of 2018. rt With these observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous ou applications, if any. C Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge November 10, 2020 h Mukesh ig H ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2021 12:25:37 :::HCHP Macleods Pharmaceutical Ltd. v. Prakash Kumar and another
Report Error