Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (BALCO), a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office in New Delhi and its factory at Balco Nagar, Korba, Chhattisgarh, had earlier obtained an order dated 14.08.2018 from the High Court of Chhattisgarh in WPT-125 of 2018. The text of that underlying writ petition and its subject matter are not set out in the order extracted here. When the order was allegedly not complied with, the petitioner filed the present Contempt Petition, CONT No. 518 of 2021, against the Principal Secretary, Finance Department (Tax Division), State of Chhattisgarh; the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department (Commercial Tax GST Department); the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department; the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue); and the Under Secretary (ST-II), Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, State Tax Division. Two of the five respondents held office within the State's Commercial Tax GST Department, indicating the underlying dispute concerned commercial tax/GST administration.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the respondent authorities had complied with the Court's earlier order dated 14.08.2018 passed in WPT-125 of 2018, compliance with which was the subject matter of the contempt proceeding.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • At the outset of the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Court on 14.08.2018 in WPT-125 of 2018 had been complied with.
  • No further submissions or grounds are recorded in this short order.

Respondent's Arguments

The order does not record any specific submissions made on behalf of the respondents; the disposal followed directly from the petitioner's counsel confirming compliance.

Court Order/Findings

  • Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal noted the submission of the petitioner's counsel that the order dated 14.08.2018 in WPT-125 of 2018 had been complied with.
  • In view of that submission, the petition was disposed of, and the contempt proceeding was closed.

Important Clarification

  • This order records only the closure of a contempt petition on the petitioner's own confirmation that the underlying 2018 writ order had been complied with; it does not itself decide, or reopen, any question relating to the merits of the original writ petition or the nature of the compliance.
  • Because the text of WPT-125 of 2018 is not part of the record extracted for this note, readers seeking the substantive GST/commercial tax issue that gave rise to the original writ petition should treat this order only as evidence that compliance was eventually reported and accepted, not as a source for the underlying dispute.

Sections Involved

The order does not cite any specific statutory provision. Given that two of the five respondents were officers of the Commercial Tax GST Department, State of Chhattisgarh, the underlying writ petition (WPT-125 of 2018) is understood to have arisen in the commercial tax/GST administration context, but the precise provisions are not disclosed in this short contempt-closure order.

Decision – In Favour of

Procedural disposal; not a decision on merits in favour of either the assessee/petitioner or the department. The contempt petition was closed on the petitioner's own confirmation that the respondent authorities had complied with the Court's 2018 order.

Related Case Laws

No related case laws are cited in this order. The order dated 14.08.2018 in WPT-125 of 2018, compliance with which was confirmed here, is the directly relevant underlying proceeding, though it is not currently available as a separate post on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur
  • Case No.: CONT No. 518 of 2021
  • Case Title: M/s Bharat Aluminium Company Limited vs Principal Secretary, Finance Department (Tax Division), State of Chhattisgarh and Others
  • Coram: Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
  • Date of Order: 06.12.2023
  • Underlying Order: Order dated 14.08.2018 in WPT-125 of 2018
  • Counsel for Petitioner: Ms Payal Jain, Advocate
  • Counsel for Respondents: Shri Abhinav Sharma, Advocate, on behalf of Shri Vikram Sharma, Advocate

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.