Girdhari Lal Parihar vs Navin Kumar Choudhary And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 836 j&K

                                                                 Sr. No.215

     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                     AT JAMMU
CJ Court

Case: CPOWP No. 304 of 2018

 Girdhari Lal Parihar
                                             ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)

                                 Through: Sh. L. K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. with
                                          Sh. Mohit Kumar, Advocate

             v/s
Navin Kumar Choudhary and others                      .... Respondent(s)
                                 Through: Sh. K. D. S. Kotwal, Dy. AG


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE

                                      ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.

2. A writ petition bearing OWP No. 629/2018 of the petitioner came to be

decided vide judgment and order dated 17.05.2018 in terms of the order dated

02.05.2017 deciding OWP No. 560/2017.

3. A perusal of the order dated 02.05.2017 deciding OWP No. 560/2017

reveals that the Court has disposed of the petition with the direction to the

Assessing Authority to take action in terms of Section 10 of the Jammu and

Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act") read

with Rules framed thereunder within a period of three months.

4. The petitioner alleges that the respondents have not taken an appropriate

action in accordance with the directions of the Court and that he has not been

refunded the actual amount of tax, which he owes to the department.

5. Objections filed on behalf of the respondents disclose that in pursuance

of the order of the High Court, an order in terms of Section 10 of the Act was

passed on 11.09.2018 and it states that in terms of the order dated 17.05.2018

passed in OWP No. 629/2018, the case of the dealer for refund has been

examined and it has been found that refund amounting to Rs. 41,170/- is

admissible to the dealer. Accordingly, directions were issued under Section 10

of the Act for refund of the said amount. The aforesaid amount has been

refunded vide order dated 12.11.2018 of the Additional Commissioner State

Taxes (Administration & Enforcement) Excise & Taxation Complex, Jammu.

6. In view of the aforesaid, we are prima-facie satisfied that the directions

of this Court have been duly complied with. The submission of Sh. L.K

Sharma, senior counsel for the petitioner is that in refunding the aforesaid

amount, the respondents have not taken into consideration the amount of tax

deducted by the Garrison Engineer and deposited with the department for the

accounting year in question. The decision taken in terms of Section 10 of the

Act may not be correct but that would not mean that the respondents have

committed any deliberate disobedience of any order of the Court. It may be a

good ground to challenge the said order or to take appropriate remedy in case

proper refund has not been made.

7. In view of the above, we direct the contempt petition to be consigned to

record. Contempt notices stand discharged. It is open for the petitioner to take

appropriate remedy as may be advised in law.

8. Disposed of.

                     (PUNEET GUPTA)                 (PANKAJ MITHAL)
                         JUDGE                      CHIEF JUSTICE
Jammu
06.08.2021
Shammi
                 Whether the order is speaking?         Yes/No
                 Whether the order is reportable?       Yes/No