w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



J.S.W. Steel Ltd v/s Commissioner of Commercial Taxes


Company & Directors' Information:- JSW STEEL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L27102MH1994PLC152925

Company & Directors' Information:- K STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27104JH1973PTC000998

Company & Directors' Information:- C T STEEL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27109WB2005PTC106634

Company & Directors' Information:- J S STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52190CT1978PTC001432

Company & Directors' Information:- B COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60230OR2011PTC014188

Company & Directors' Information:- K STEEL & COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1991PTC053960

Company & Directors' Information:- STEEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00349KA1958PTC001309

    Sales/Trade Tax Revision Nos. 141 to 144 of 2014

    Decided On, 19 February 2014

    At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL

    For the Appellant: Shubham Agrawal, Bharat Ji Agrawal, Advocates. For the Respondent: ---------.



Judgment Text

Sudhir Agarwal, J.

1. All these Revisions involve common questions of law and, therefore, have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shubham Agarwal, learned counsel for Revisionist and learned Standing Counsel for Revenue.

Trade Tax Revision No. 141 of 2014:

2. This Trade Tax Revision has been preferred u/s 58 of Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2008") raising following questions of law formulated in para 40 of memo of revision:

(I) Whether in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ITC Limited Vs. CC (Appeals) and CE and Others, , the complete dispensation of deposit of the amount should be allowed if the appellant-applicant has strong prima facie case and where two views are possible even if the appellant-applicant is running in good financial position?

(II) Whether none of three clauses of Section 25(1) of Act, 2008 is applicable in the present case hence the assessing authority had no jurisdiction to make a provisional assessment order and the provisional assessment order having been passed only on account of seizure of the goods on 27.8.2013 on the technical ground of column No. 6 of Form-38 of the consignment being not filled and there being no material available on record with the assessing authority to show or establish that the applicant is suppressing the turnover of sale or purchase, hence in view of the law laid down by this Court in ITC Ltd. (supra) and in the case of Honda Siel Cards Ltd. 2010 UPTC 1152, the Tribunal was not justified in directing the applicant to deposit 20 % of the disputed amount of tax by completely overlooking the law laid down by this Court.

(III) Whether as per Section 25(1) of Act, 2008, the provisional assessment order can be passed only on the basis of material available on record with the assessing authority, when it appears to the assessing authority that the turnover of sale or purchase disclosed by the dealer is not worthy of credence?

(IV) Whether in the present case, there is no material available on record with the assessing authority with respect to the undisclosed sales or purchases having been made by the applicant and hence no provisional assessment order could be passed only on the basis of seizure having been made against the applicant. Thus, the provisions of Section 25(1) of Act, 2008 are not applicable in the present case of the applicant?

(V) Whether the Tribunal has erred in passing the impugned order without considering the specific grounds having been raised by the applicant that the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Act, 2008 for the purpose of making the provisional assessment are not applicable in the present case of the applicant?

3. The revision has not arisen from final orders of appellate authorities below, but has arisen at an interlocutory stage.

4. The facts in brief are that a provisional assessment u/s 25(1) of Act, 2008 for the month July 2013 (Financial Year 2013-14) was proposed by Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax (II), Ghaziabad, vide notice dated 20.11.2012. After receiving reply from Revisionist- Assessee, he passed a provisional assessment order on 9.12.2013 determining tax liability of Rs. 4,37,32,036/- and after adjusting the amount already paid, raised a demand of Rs. 8,40,000/-. Thereagainst Revisionist-Assessee preferred Appeal No. 10 of 2014 and also sought for stay of requirement of deposit of entire demand/disputed amount demanded vide assessment order dated 9.12.2013. Appellate Authority, i.e., Additional Commissioner, Grade-II (Appeal)-2, Commercial Tax, Ghaziabad vide order dated 16.1.2014 granted stay to the extent of only 50 percent of the disputed amount of Rs. 8,40,000/-. There against Assessee-Revisionist preferred Second Appeal No. 72 of 2014 which has been decided by Tribunal vide order dated 20.1.2014 staying 80 percent of disputed amount and permitting assessee to furnish security of stayed amount within 30 days. It is this order, which has caused grievance to assessee giving rise to the present revisions since according to his version he is entitled for stay of 100 percent against demand of disputed amount and the appellate authorities below have committed error in not granting complete stay, as sought for by Revisionist.

5. All other Revisions, i.e., Trade Tax Revision No. 142 of 2014, Trade Tax Revision No. 143 of 2014 and Trade Tax Revision No. 144 of 2014, involve same facts, except the difference that they pertain to difference months, i.e. August 2013, September 2013 and October 2013 respectively, but the questions of law and basic facts are common and, therefore, this Court is considering factual details only in the context of Trade Tax Revision No. 141 of 2014 for the purpose of adjudicating the questions of law raised and argued.

6. Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for Revisionist, contended that no prima facie case was made out so as to authorize Assessing Authority to make a provisional assessment order u/s 25(1) of Act, 2008 and, therefore, entire proceedings culminating in the order of assessment, appealed before the First Appellate Authority was patently illegal and looking to this aspect of the matter, appellate authorities must have allowed stay application of Revisionist-Assessee in entirety, by dispensing with requirement of deposit of disputed tax, altogether. Since both the appellate authorities have failed to do so, impugned orders suffer in law. He placed reliance on the authorities of this Court in ITC Limited Vs. CC (Appeals) and CE and Others, and Rathi Super Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax 2013 NTN (53) 204.

7. Learned Standing Counsel, however, opposed revisions and contended that at the stage of granting interim order with regard to question, whether the entire disputed amount should be stayed or not. Appellate Authority has to look into not only the prima facie case but all other relevant aspects of the matter and this having been done, no interference is called for. He submitted that once a serious flaw in Form-38 has been found by Assessing Authority, which gives genuine and sustainable ground to satisfy him that there is an evasion of tax, it cannot be said that provisional assessment has not been made validly and Appellate Authority, in these facts and circumstances, is wholly justified in granting indulgence, that too, substantially, in favour of Assessee. Hence no interference is called for at this stage.

8. In the present case, occasion to pass provisional assessment order has been derived by Deputy Commissioner from the factum that in the checking conducted by Mobile Squad on 22.8.2013, vehicle No. HR 38Q 1200 was found loaded with 46.360 metric ton of H.R. Coils. The driver of vehicle possessed consignment notes, and, besides other documents, Form-38 having Column 6 completely blank. It did not mention bill number and date in both the copies possessed by Driver. Keeping Form-38 blank in the above column may help Assessee in reuse of Form to evade tax and, therefore, in addition to violation of Section 50 of Act, 2008, it is also in contravention to the Commissioner's Circular No. 0910015 dated 3.6.2009. The Mobile Squad Officer issued a show cause notice and ultimately required Assessee to furnish security of Rs. 8 lacs and odd on the estimated value of goods and thereafter the same was released. All these aspects have been taken note by the Assessing Authority and the existence of these facts is not disputed.

9. The Assessee admitted that Column 6 of Form 38 did not find mention with the invoice number and date, but denied any lapse on its part stating that Form-38 is filled in by Consignor and not the Consignee, hence, he (the Assessee) cannot be penalized for the lapse on the part of Consignor. He also said that Column-6 of Form-38 was left blank due to oversight. The goods were transported against GR 75072/TFBD27C/561 dated 19.8.2013 which had invoice number, date, item, quantity, weight, value and vehicle number. Transaction was duly recorded in regular books, of account, hence no adverse inference was liable to be drawn against Assessee. The argument that notice is founded on possibility and suspicion which would not justify penalty or provisional assessment u/s 25(1) of Act, 2008, and the case for provisional assessment would not fall in either of Clauses of Section 25(1), hence, no provisional assessment was justified, has been considered by Assessing Authority in the order dated 9.12.2013 wherein it has stressed upon importance and relevance of Form-38, Column-6 and has said:

English Translation by the Court:

Column 6 of Form-38 is a very important column, which correlates goods to other documents like bill/invoice etc. Its original copy, immediately after goods being imported, has to be submitted with the office and on this very basis, the tax is assessed. Only this correlates Form-38 with the bill. The intention of tax evasion is quite evident when other columns of the form were filled by the employee concerned and only column 6, providing basis for tax assessment, was left blank/ incomplete. The distance of merchant's place of business from Delhi is so minimal that goods can easily be transported several times in a day using a single Form-38. These circumstances themselves are proofs of mala fide intention.

10. The Assessing Authority has also followed a decision of this Court in Multitex Filtration Engg. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax [C.T.R. No. 481 of 2009, dated 20-6-2009], where this Court has observed, "According to me, mentioning of challan, bill and Invoice numbers in the declaration form is very material. By filling column No. 6 and mentioning invoice, bill or challan numbers the declaration form can be correlated with the goods covered by invoice or challan.... Perusal of the said form reveals that all Columns have been filled except column No. 6. When the applicant was filling all the columns, there cannot be any possible reason why he has left filling column No. 6. This appears to be deliberate....Non-filling of column No. 6 i.e. non-mentioning of challan number or invoice number may lead to an inference that in case of non-checking of the goods, the said declaration form may be used for any other consignment of a similar quantity, quality, weight and value." It is in these facts and circumstances, the Assessing Officer has also found that Form-38 in question was not signed by Consignor and it shows that it was not filled in by Consignor, but by Assessee itself, who left Column 6 blank deliberately. Assessing Authority from the discussion made in the impugned order, some of which are referred to hereinabove, formed an opinion that turnover of sale or purchase or both declared by Dealer is not worthy of credence and thereby assumed jurisdiction for making provisional assessment and has passed the order appealed before First Appellate Authority.

11. In the memo of appeal, the Assessee has reiterated all the grounds which it has taken before Assessing Officer. Since those aspects have already been considered and prima facie case against Assessee has been found, it cannot be said that Assessing Authority's order is apparently without jurisdiction. In any case, this is a issue which was before Assessing Authority and having been considered by it, now has to be considered by Appellate Authority where the Revisionist's appeal is pending. Apparently, it cannot be said that Assessing Authority lacked patent jurisdiction or there is no prima facie case whatsoever. It is true that while passing order on the stay application of Assessee, both the Appellate Authorities have not stated in so many words about prima facie case etc. but a combined reading of all the orders, aforesaid, leads to no otherwise inference but what has been discussed and stated above. The merits of entire case, as such, is not to be discussed by the appellate authority at the stage when it has to consider the stay application as that would otherwise prejudice the interest of either of parties, but the only thing which Appellate Authority must show that it has applied its mind in considering the matter in accordance with law. The Tribunal has already granted indulgence to Assessee by staying requirement of deposit of disputed amount to the extent of 80 percent and in the facts of this case, I do not find any patent error therein.

12. The First Appeal has been preferred u/s 55 of Act, 2008 and Sub-section (3) thereof provides that no appeal against an assessment order shall be entertained unless the appellant has furnished satisfactory proof of payment of amount of tax or fee due under the Act or admitted by him, whichever is greater. Sub-section (6) thereof, however, confers power upon Appellate Authority to stay realization of disputed amount of tax, fee or penalty till disposal of appeal. It is this power, which has been exercised by Appellate Authority while staying deposit of 50 percent of disputed tax, which has been increased by Tribunal to 80 percent and now Assessee is required to deposit only 20 percent.

13. The question is, whether requirement of 20 percent of disputed tax by Assessee having not been stayed by the authorities below, have they committed any patent error of law and can it be said that impugned orders have been passed without any application of mind or proper application of mind?

14. The first requirement of Section 55 of Act, 2008 is that no appeal against an order of assessment is entertainable unless appellant has deposited the amount of tax or fee, due under the Act or admitted by him, whichever is greater. So far as admitted amount is concerned, there is no dispute and no argument has been advanced otherwise that it has to be deposited. The dispute relates to "amount due", meaning thereby, an amount which has been demanded vide order of assessment passed under Act, 2008 whereagainst appeal is preferred, provided it is greater than the admitted amount. When an order is passed against Assessee, whereagainst Assessee comes in appeal, almost invariably it would be a case where "amount due" would be higher than the admitted one, and, thus only the occasion will arise for invoking jurisdiction under Sub-section (6) seeking stay of deposit of such amount. In order to exercise such power of stay, Appellate Authority as to examine various aspects which will include the interest of appellant as well as the Revenue. In various judicial precedents, it has been explained that Appellate Authority must find out first whether appellant has make out a prima facie case in the appeal so as to enable the Appellate Authority to grant stay order in favour of appellant. To my mind, the power of stay is not unbridled, uncontrolled and absolute to the extent of arbitrariness. It cannot be exercised whimsically and on conjectures and surmises. Before granting stay order, the general principles in such matters must be applied. A prima facie case, balance of convenience and if necessary, even the concept of irreparable loss can be looked into in such matter. For example, if the amount required to be deposited is phenomenally higher and Assessing Authority finds that apparently from the very bare reading of order appealed, it does appear that such amount is not justified or ultimately may not stand, it may exercise power of stay conferred under sub-section (6). Similarly, one of the consideration is capacity of Assessee vis-a-vis demand raised by Assessing Authority in the order appealed. No thumb rule can be applied to such matters, but one thing is clear that when we say that a prima facie case has to be looked into by Assessing Authority, it does not mean that it has to go to the extent of saying that it must find out and hold that Revenue has no case at all, despite the fact that an order is existing in its favour, which has been appealed by other side. A prima facie case means the grounds taken by the appellant, if considered ex parte, there appears to be some force therein subject to what is said by other side, but that cannot be equated as if Revenue has no case. Simultaneously, it also cannot be presumed that when a prima facie case is found in favour of appellant, it would mean that Revenue has no case and, therefore, Assessee is entitled, as a matter of right, for grant of stay of the entire disputed amount.

15. There are two stages/phases of the matter. One, whether a stay order should be granted at all and secondly, to what extent the stay order should be granted. The requirement of prima facie case, to be shown by appellant, is one but initial factor which would justify exercise of power of stay by Assessing Authority, but then to what extent stay order should be granted, it shall depend on multiple factors and reasons, which may vary from case to case. In the present case, discrepancy in respect to one of the important document is admitted. Though the Assessee has attempted to explain it, but it has not been believed by the authority at the initial level. Now its credibility has to be examined by Appellate Authority. At the stage of granting stay order, it cannot be presumed that credibility must be believed by Appellate Authority, without anything more. In all the authorities cited at the bar in support of questions raised in these revisions to seek favour for Assessee, it has been held that Appellate Authority should apply its mind to the question whether stay order should be granted and if so, to what extent. The power should not be exercised mechanically or on conjectures and surmises or in an arbitrary manner. Simultaneously, it also cannot be said that mere existence of a prima facie case, bereft of all other relevant factors, would justify grant of stay order to the extent of 100 percent. After all, Appellate Authority has to adopt a balancing approach in favour of both the parties and cannot proceed to go out and out to support appellant's case though correctness of the order passed by authority below is yet to be examined by it. It is also true, when stay order is granted, it does not mean that the assessment order stands wiped out for all purposes. On the contrary, it shall continue to exist until set aside. Therefore, when an order is continuing, in order to nullify liability raised therein, strong reasons and factors, in addition to existence of a prima facie case, must have to exist and must be

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

shown by appellant, failing which, as a matter of right, it cannot be claimed that 100 percent stay order must be passed. Any other view would nullify the scope of judicious discretion to be exercised by Appellate Authority while granting stay in exercise of power u/s 55(6) of Act, 2008. Learned counsel for revisionist, however, has failed to satisfy this Court also that Assessee must have been granted 100 percent stay. 16. So far as question No. 1 formulated in para 40 of memo of revision is concerned, it is nothing but reiteration of observations made by Division Bench of this Court in I.T.C. Ltd. (supra), and, therefore, it cannot be said that this question has arisen in this matter, since it is nothing but what has been held therein, but I do not find that it applies to the case in hand, since at this stage it cannot be said that two views are not possible or there is strong prima facie case in favour of Assessee-Revisionist so much so that Revenue has no case at all or that there is no prima facie case in favour of Revenue. The Question No. 1, therefore, is answered against Assessee. 17. Similarly, Questions Nos. 2 and 3 are also answered against the Assessee holding that a prima facie case has been made out by Revenue for making provisional assessment, carved out by section 25(1)(iii) and, therefore, watching interest of both the parties, it cannot be said that Tribunal was unjustified in directing Assessee-Revisionist to deposit 20 percent of disputed amount and grating stay of 80 percent thereof. Both these questions are also answered against the Revisionist-Assessee. 18. Question No. 5, in view of above discussion, is also answered against Revisionist. So far as Question No. 4 is concerned, I find, it ought not be answered at this stage, since appeal is pending before First Appellate Authority and answering this question will amount to adjudication of the grounds taken by Revisionist-Assessee in appeal and, therefore, left unanswered at this stage. In the result, all the revisions are dismissed. No costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

20-05-2020 M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Nilesh Mahendra Kumar Gandhi & Another Versus The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Check of Accounts) & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
29-04-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Limited Versus State Tradings Corporation Of India Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
27-04-2020 Commercial Taxes Officer Versus M/s. Bombay Machinery Store Supreme Court of India
13-03-2020 M/s. Fossil India Private Limited, Represented by Sunil Prabhakaran Authorised Signatory Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Audit-5.4), Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
11-03-2020 J. Nagarajan Versus Chief Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-03-2020 M/s. Commercial Steel Co. Versus ASC Sales Tax High Court of for the State of Telangana
24-02-2020 Panch Tatva Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Versus GPT Steel Industries Ltd. (Through Resolution Professional) & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
19-02-2020 M/s. GAIL (India) Limited, R.K. Puram, New Delhi Versus M/s. Arkay Energy(Rameswaram)Limited, Rep. by its President (Commercial and Legal) R. Jarard Kishore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 M/s. Shiv Mahadev Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Director H. Sahadevram Choudhary, Chennai Versus The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 The Commissioner of Central Excise, O/o. The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Salem Versus M/s. JSW Steel Ltd., M/s. JSW Power Ltd., Pottaneri, Mecheri High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 Commissioner, Commercial Taxes U.P. Lucknow Versus M/s. Narain Vegetable Products Sitapur High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
12-02-2020 M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd., Salem Steel Plant, Represented by its Deputy General Manager, Finance & Accounts, K. Sivaguru, Versus The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-02-2020 M/s. Vinayaga Blue Metals, Represented by its Partner, P. Selvaraj Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-2 Versus M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. (Successor on amalgamation of JSW Ispat Steel Ltd.) High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-02-2020 M/s. Texcel International Pvt. Ltd., Sengundram Industrial Area (Near Ford India Ltd.,), Chengalpattu Versus M/s. Chennai Steel Tubes, Rep.by one of its Partner, G. Bhavanishankar High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-02-2020 M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Enterprises represented by its Proprietor R. Devika Versus The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager Southern Railway Divisional Railway Manager's Office Commercial Branch, Park Town Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2020 Reckitt Benckiser (india) Ltd V/S Commissioner Commercial Taxes and Others Supreme Court of India
30-01-2020 State of Odisha & Others Versus M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
21-01-2020 Nirmal Kumar Parsan & Others Versus Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Others Supreme Court of India
21-01-2020 Jindal Steel & Power Limited, Raigarh & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
13-01-2020 M/s. Steel Authority Of India Ltd. Versus Kamladityya Construction Pvt Ltd. High Court of Jharkhand
06-01-2020 M/s. Rukminirama Steel Rollings Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus The State of Goa Through the Chief Secretary, Secretariat & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
06-01-2020 Asutosh & Another Versus Commercial Taxes Department (GST) & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
24-12-2019 Shyam Steel Industries Limited Versus Shyam Sel & Power Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-12-2019 T.K. Jagadeesan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Commercial Taxes and Registration (K), Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-12-2019 Selva's Steel Private Limited Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-12-2019 Shalimar Iron and Steel Private Limited, Ramgarh Cantt. through its Director Rafat Praveen Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others High Court of Jharkhand
06-12-2019 In Re: M/s. MFAR Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its Chief Executive Officer Fayaz Kamaluddin Versus Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Zone-II, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
05-12-2019 M/s. Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd & Another Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
04-12-2019 M/s. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Rep. by its General Manager, V.S. Prasad Versus Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Project Director, Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-12-2019 Electrosteel Steel Ltd. & Others Versus M/s. STP Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
28-11-2019 S. Arivu Versus The Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes & Registration Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-11-2019 K. Madheswari Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Musiri & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-11-2019 M/s. A.R.S. Metals (P) Limited, Chennai Versus Additional Commissioner (Revision Petition), Office of the Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-11-2019 Punjab & Sind Bank Versus M/s. Indo Foreign Commercial Agency Products Private Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
13-11-2019 Haripada Barman, Retired Divisional Commercial Superintendent, Dibrugarh Versus The Union of India, Represented by The General Manger, N.F. Railway, Maligaon & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
13-11-2019 HI-TEK Traders, Changanacherry, Represented by C.C. Joyichan, Managing Partner Versus Commercial Tax Officer, Changanacherry & Others High Court of Kerala
12-11-2019 M/s. Murugan & Co, Rep. by its Partner P.A. Sankar Versus The Union of India, Rep. by its Commercial Tax Department, Government of Puducherry & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-11-2019 JSW Steel Limited Versus Government of Karnataka High Court of Karnataka
30-10-2019 Karma Enterprises, Kozhikode, Represented by Its Managing Partner K.M. Sasidharan Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Deputy Commissioner (Law, Commercial Taxes), Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
30-10-2019 Hydromet India Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, M. Venkata Subramanian, Kancheepuram Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Kancheepuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-10-2019 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 1 Versus NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
24-10-2019 Jindal Steel & Power Limited Versus Arun Kumar Jagatramka National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
22-10-2019 Steel Authority of India Limited Central Marketing Organization Through Assistant General Manager (Marketing) Regional Office, Maharashtra Versus Lalit Agrawal & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
22-10-2019 Vanit Gupta & Another Versus Delta Iron & Steel Company P. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-10-2019 K.P.L. International Limited, Represented by it Senior Vice President, R.P. Mundra Versus The Commercial Tax Officer Saidapet Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-10-2019 M/s. Crystal Apartments, CSI Commercial Centre, Baker Junction, Kottayam represented by its Managing Partner Binny Itty, Govindapuram kara, Kottayam Versus Saji Thomas Varghese, Chalukunnau, Kottayam rep. By Power of Attorney Holder & Others Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
15-10-2019 M/s. Pioneer Agro Industry, Tirupur Versus Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-10-2019 JSW Steel Ltd. Versus Mahender Kumar Khandelwal & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
04-10-2019 M/s. Vinayagar Spinning Mills, Tirupur & Others Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Tirupur High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-10-2019 M/s. Vaishnavi Overseas Rep. by its Authorized signatory, Kolkatta, West Bengal Versus Commercial Tax Officer Enforcement (Central), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-09-2019 Foods, Fats and Fertilizers Limited represented by its Authorised Signatory T.K. Ravindran, Chennai & Another Versus The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Kancheepuram & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-09-2019 ReNew Power Limited having its corporate office at Commercial Block 1, Represented by its Authorized Representative Satwik E & Others Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Energy Infrastructure & Investment Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
23-09-2019 M/s. Sree Vaduganathar Spinning Mills, Rep. by its Partner, N. Selvaraj & Another Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Palladam Assessment Circle & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-09-2019 Magna Cranes Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, G. Vasu Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary Commercial Taxes Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-09-2019 M/s. C.A. Motors, Rep. by its Managing Partner C. Balamurugan Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruvarur High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-09-2019 Manjit Commercial LLP Versus SPM Auto Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
05-09-2019 M/s. S.S. Steel Industry Versus M/s. Shri Guru Hargobind Steels High Court of Delhi
04-09-2019 M/s. Filaments & Windings (India) Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore Versus The Principal Commissioner & Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-08-2019 TVL. K.H. Shoes Ltd., Rep. by its Director M. Mohammed Shameem, Chennai Versus The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Revision Petition), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-08-2019 Ramesh Kumar Vishwakarma & Others Versus Steel Authority of India Limited Through Its Managing Director, Bhilai & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
19-08-2019 M. Saroopchand Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax Department, Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-08-2019 M/S Mamta Steel India Pvt. Ltd. Peepur Amethi Throu, Director & Another Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Civil Lines Allahabad High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
31-07-2019 Prajapati Gunwant Keshavlal Versus Union of India, Representing General Manager (Commercial) & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
31-07-2019 M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Versus Exalt Service Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
29-07-2019 M/S Vishwaleela Steel Tube Industries & Others Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
25-07-2019 M/s. Emkay Engineering Works, Represented by its Proprietor, R. Chinniah, Chennai Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Pattaravakkam Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-07-2019 M/s. Kesar Textile Park India Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Director Rameshchandra Nandlal Bhattad Versus The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary to Government Commercial Taxes and Registration Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-07-2019 Airport Director, Airport Authority of India, Chennai Airport, Chennai Versus The Managing Director, Karnataka Commercial & Indl. Corporations Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-07-2019 S/s Bright Technologies Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
16-07-2019 Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited, Mumbai Versus Abhishek Steel & Power Limited rep. by its Managing Director, Gopal Agarwal, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
09-07-2019 Nagar Palika Parishad Versus M/s. Commercial Marketing Services High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
05-07-2019 The Director, Steel Authority of India Limited Versus Ispat Khandan Janta Mazdoor Union Supreme Court of India
05-07-2019 Steel Authority of India Limited & Another Versus Jaggu & Others Supreme Court of India
02-07-2019 Little Flower Hospital Trust, Angamaly, Ernakulam Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Intelligence Officer (Ib) Department of Commercial Taxes, Mattancherry High Court of Kerala
02-07-2019 M/s. Craft Interiors(P) Ltd. Versus The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence) & Another Supreme Court of India
27-06-2019 M/s. Sivasakthi Polymers, Represented by its Managing Partner V. Subramaniam & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-06-2019 M/s. Sulochana Cotton Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., Tirupur Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Tirupur High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-06-2019 M/s. Steel Complex Limited, Wisco Manor, Calicut, Represented by The Managing Director Versus K.G. Subramania Iyer High Court of Kerala
18-06-2019 M/s. Amman Agencies, Represented by its Proprietor C. Velusamy, Villupuram Versus The Appellate Deputy Commissioner(CT), Commercial Taxes Department, Cuddalore High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-06-2019 M/s. Onyx Designs, Rep. by its Proprietor Anshul Jindal, Bangalore Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
13-06-2019 M/s. India Metal One Steel Plate Processing Private Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle – 2 (2) High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-06-2019 K. Isaivani Versus The Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-06-2019 D.R. Rajendran Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-06-2019 R. Venkatraman & Others Versus The Secretary to Government Commercial Taxes & Registration Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
29-05-2019 M/s. Spencers Travel Services Ltd., Chennai Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Anna Salai III Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-05-2019 Adwaita Prasad Biswal Versus Rourkela Steel Plant High Court of Orissa
09-05-2019 Dr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Director (Retired), Geological Survey of India, Shillong Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of steel & Mines, Department of Mines, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
08-05-2019 M/s. Indus Steel & Alloys Ltd. Represented by its Director S.S. Srikanth & Others Versus D. Venkatesh Guptha & Others High Court of Karnataka
08-05-2019 M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur Supreme Court of India
27-04-2019 Vino Trading, Rep., by its Proprietor C. Paramaisware, Madurai Versus The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
27-04-2019 G. Kumar Versus Assistant Commercial Manager, Bengluru & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
25-04-2019 Tvl.Star Seeds, Rep. by its Proprietor, M. Subramani, Salem & Others Versus The Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-04-2019 Tvl. Suja Seeds Corporation, Rep. by its Partner, R. Sriram Versus The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-04-2019 Sadashiv Yashwant Kumbhar & Others Versus M/s. S.J. Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-04-2019 Hari Steel & General Industries Ltd. & Another Versus Daljit Singh & Others Supreme Court of India
24-04-2019 A. Ramachandran Versus The Commercial Tax Officer (FAC), Sriperumbudur Assessment Circle, Varadarajapuram & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-04-2019 Jai Narayana Paper & Board, Represented by its Properitor Jeyakumar, Viruthunagar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Department of Commercial Taxes & Registration, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
22-04-2019 M/s. Crafts India, Represented by its Partner P.K. Bhaaskaran Versus The Commercial Tax Officer Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
18-04-2019 Steel Authority of India Limited, Unit: Iisco Steel Plant Versus Workmen of Steel Authority of India Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box