MAA CHHINNMASTIKA CEMENT AND ISPAT PVT LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR PARASUHRAM SINGH V. THE UNION OF INDIA

Cont.(Cvl)/884/2019

AI Insights

The case involves Maa Chhinnmastika Cement & Ispat Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner, who filed a contempt application against the Union of India and two income tax officials for non-compliance with a court order. The original order required the petitioner to deposit Rs.30,00,000 and, upon doing so, the attachment of their cash credit account would be kept in abeyance until the final decision on their revision/review application regarding an earlier order. The petitioner complied with these conditions, but the income tax officials did not release the account, leading to the contempt application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 687678 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RAHUL LAMBA
• Assessee Lawyers: SUMEET GADODIA
• Keywords: Attachment Order; Cash credit account; Contempt proceedings; Non compliance; Revision/Review

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Civil) No. 884 of 2019 -------- Maa Chhinnmastika Cement & Ispat Pvt. Ltd. .... … Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India 2. Shri Nayan Jyoti, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Range-2, Ranchi. 3. Shri Rakeshwar Dayal, Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward, Ranchi. …. … Opposite Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN -------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate For the Opposite Parties Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate -------- 02/ 24.09.2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. 2. This application has been filed for initiation of appropriate contempt proceedings against the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3, for non-compliance of order dated 05.09.2019, passed by this Court in W.P.(T) No. 4653 of 2019, and analogous matters. The operative portion of the order reads as follows :- “6. In the facts of this case, the offer given by the learned counsel for the petitioner, prima facie, appear to be genuine to us, in view of the fact that cash credit account of the petitioner has already been attached, which may be causing hindrance in the business of the petitioner. Accordingly, we direct the petitioner to make the deposit of Rs.30,00,000/- and upon the deposit of this amount, the attachment order dated 24.06.2019 attaching the cash credit account of the petitioner shall remain in abeyance, till the period one week, and if revision / review is filed against the order dated 08.04.2019 within the same period, the attachment order shall be guided by the final order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, on the revision / review application, and upon its compliance by the petitioner.” 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the fact that they have already deposited amount of Rs.30,00,000/- and have also filed the revision / review petition within the period prescribed by this Court, the cash credit account of the petitioner, has not yet been released by the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3. The documents to show that the petitioner has deposited the amount of Rs.30,00,000/- and has also filed the -2- revision / review within the period prescribed by this Court, have been brought on record. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that though they may file show cause in the matter, but the fact remains that this Court had kept the attachment order in abeyance. In that view of the matter, no further order or clarification was required by the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3. 5. The order dated 05.09.2019, passed by this Court, clearly shows that the impugned order dated 24.06.2019, by which the cash credit account of the petitioner had been attached, was kept in abeyance by this Court, upon fulfillment of two conditions by the writ-petitioner, which admittedly have been fulfilled. There is no denial by the learned counsel for the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 that the conditions imposed by this Court have not been fulfilled by the petitioner. Rather, the stand of learned counsel is that no further order is required to be passed by the I.T. Department. In that view of the matter, if the petitioner produced the proof of compliance of the conditions, the petitioner ought to have been allowed to operate their account. The Bank, for abundant precaution might be justified in getting the green signal from the I.T. Department as well. 6. However, in view of the stand taken by learned counsel for the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3, we hereby, clarify that to the satisfaction of this Court, the petitioner has brought on record the documents to show that the petitioner has deposited the amount of Rs.30,00,000/- and has also filed the revision / review within the period prescribed by this Court. As such, the order passed by this Court, keeping the attachment order in abeyance, has come in force, and the concerned Bank, i.e., State Bank of India, SME Branch, Ranchi, shall abide by the order of this Court, without awaiting any further clarification from any authority whatsoever. 7. This Contempt Application stands disposed of with the direction / clarification as above. ( H. C. Mishra, A.C.J.) ( Deepak Roshan, J.) RKM "