Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 129 Guj
Judgement Date : 6 January, 2021
C/MCA/697/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 697 of 2020
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15333 of 2019
===========================================================
J.K. CEMENT LTD.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
===============================================================
Appearance:
UCHIT N SHETH(7336) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Opponent(s) No. 1,2
==============================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM
NATH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Date : 06/01/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH)
Special Civil Application Nos. 15333 and 16288 of 2019 were allowed vide judgment and order dated 18.12.2019. The operative portion of the judgment as contained in paragraph 21 thereof reads as follow :
"21. For the foregoing reasons, the petitions succeed and are accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to forthwith process the refund claims of the respective petitioners and grant refund of the tax amount collected from the petitioners and deposited by the seller in accordance with law within a period of twelve weeks of the receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is, however, clarified that once the refund claim of the petitioners is processed, Reliance Industries Limited would not be entitled to claim any such refund. Rule is made absolute accordingly, with no order as to costs."
C/MCA/697/2020 ORDER 2. This contempt application has been filed alleging noncompliance of the said direction. Notices were issued on 25.11.2020 fixing today's
date. Today, Mr. Dharmesh Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, upon instructions, has stated that the State of Gujarat has preferred SLP before the Supreme Court which has since been filed, diary number has been allotted. He thus prays that the hearing of this contempt may be deferred to enable the State to take its chance before the Supreme Court.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Sheth, learned advocate for the opposite party submits that the conduct of the State in preferring an appeal after a period of almost one year and in the meantime, not ensuring compliance of the direction of the Division Bench judgment itself amounts to clear disobedience and therefore, the Court may proceed further in the matter.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let this matter be listed after four weeks on 12.02.2021. By the said date, the opposite party may either obtain some protection of the Supreme Court or if they fail, ensure compliance and file an appropriate affidavit before this Court. In the event, the SLP is not taken up for orders in the meantime, by the next date, the State may make deposits as directed by the Division Bench before this Court by way of demand draft or an account payee
C/MCA/697/2020 ORDER
cheque drawn in favour of Registrar General giving the details of the deposits of the respective petitioners.
(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)
(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)
cmk
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!