GURPREET SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/26132/2023HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01142055202321 November 2023Bench: MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

On the issue of criminal contempt, the High Court held that the counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Mukhi, had indeed scandalized and lowered the authority of the Court and compounded the contempt by interfering in subsequent proceedings. However, after the counsel filed an unconditional apology on 22.11.2023, tendering his assurance to abide by the court's decorum, the Court decided not to pursue the contempt proceedings further and dropped the issue. Regarding the merits of the writ petition, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the Bench was disinclined to interfere, he did not wish to press the petition and prayed for its disposal as such. The Court accepted this submission.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gurpreet Singh, through his counsel Mr. S.K. Mukhi, filed a writ petition (CWP-26132-2023) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, challenging an order or action by the Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana. During the initial hearing on 21.11.2023, after arguing for some time and facing the Bench's disinclination to call upon the respondent, the petitioner's counsel made personal comments against the Bench. The Court issued notice of criminal contempt and adjourned the matter. The counsel continued to interfere in subsequent proceedings, compounding the contempt. However, considering his standing, the Court decided against immediate custody and allowed him to file an affidavit. Later, on 22.11.2023, the counsel filed an unconditional apology, which was taken on record. Consequently, the criminal contempt proceedings were dropped.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the conduct of the petitioner's counsel, Mr. S.K. Mukhi, amounted to criminal contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, specifically for scandalizing and lowering the authority of the Court in open court and for interfering in court proceedings. Assessee's Contention (Implicit): The petitioner's counsel, through his subsequent unconditional apology and prayer to withdraw the petition, implicitly sought leniency and resolution of the contempt issue. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the writ petition should be pressed on its merits, given the Bench's disinclination to interfere.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 14(1), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 Section 14(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:148494-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-26132-2023 Decided on : 21/22.11.2023

Gurpreet Singh

……Petitioner(s) Versus Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana

……Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present: Mr.S.K.Mukhi, Advocate for the petitioner (s).

***** G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral)

After arguing for some time and faced with the fact that the Bench was not inclined to call upon the other side, counsel for the petitioner in the face of the Court made personal comment against the Bench. 2.

Accordingly, we issue notice of criminal contempt to him as he has scandalized and lowered the authority of Court in open Court and direct him to file a reply by the next date of hearing. 3.

Adjourned to 11.12.2023. 4.

In spite of the matter being adjourned, counsel for the petitioner continues to interfere in the next case and, thus, further compounding the contempt, which is on the face of it, also contemptuous. However, keeping in field view the fact that he is a counsel with substantial standing in the field of Income Tax, we do not feel it is a fit case to send him into custody immediately under Section 14(1) read with Section 14(4) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and give him an opportunity to file necessary affidavit. (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE

(LAPITA BANERJI) 21.11.2023

JUDGE SAILESH RANJAN 2023.11.23 10:53 I attest to the integrity/authenticity of this document/order

CWP-26132-2023

-2-

Before the above order dated 21.11.2023 could be signed, Mr.Mukhi, later in the evening, came to apologise and sought an audience in the chambers. The same was not granted because it was not the first time that it had happened and also at that point of time, the second Member of the Bench was not available. 6.

On 22.11.2023, affidavit of the counsel has been filed tendering his unconditional apology stating that he will abide by the decorum of the Court in future. Same is taken on record. 7.

In such circumstances, we do not propose to further keep the issue open regarding the issue of Criminal Contempt and the same is hereby dropped. 8.

On the merits of the case, counsel further submits that since we were already disinclined to interfere in the matter, he does not wish to press the present petition and prays that the same may be disposed of, as such. 9.

Ordered accordingly. (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE

(LAPITA BANERJI) 22.11.2023

JUDGE Sailesh

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No

SAILESH RANJAN 2023.11.23 10:53 I attest to the integrity/authenticity of this document/order

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →