TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ience of directions issued in judgment dated 10/07/2018 [ 2018 (8) TMI 974 - KERALA HIGH COURT ] or not - HELD THAT:- The contention is noted and after perusing the record, this Court is of the view that the decision in terms of the judgment dated 10/07/2018 is taken in the meeting held on 12/02/2019. The outcome of the decision is that the request of petitioner is rejected . Therefore, the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the judgment against which, the disobedience is complained reads as follows: So, in this case also, the petitioner may apply to the additional sixth respondent, the Nodal Officer. The petitioner applying, the Nodal Officer will look into the issue and facilitate the petitioner's uploading FORM GST TRAN-1, without reference to the time-frame. Ordered so. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts to willful disobedience of the directions issued in judgment dated 10/07/2018 in writ petition No. 21287/2018. 3. The respondent filed counter affidavit and adverting to the steps taken by the respondent in terms of judgment, the reply reads thus: 4. I respectfully submit that in compliance of the directions of this Hon'ble Court following the Circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitting/Revision and there are no evidences of system errors in the log . As per the Minutes, the ITGRC after indepth consideration of the petitioner's case, decided not to allow filing of TRAN-1 as the system logs clearly evidenced that there was no IT-Glitch in the case of the petitioner. The true copy of the minutes along with the relevant pages of Annexures therein is produced herewith a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me of the decision is that the request of petitioner is rejected . Therefore, the petitioner is required to treat the decision taken on 12.02.2019 as a decision on the request of the petitioner and it so challenges the decisions as provided for by law. The reply of respondent does not warrant continuation of contempt proceedings. Hence, the contempt case is dismissed. The respondent, since has ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
