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



K.P.L. International Limited, Represented by it Senior Vice President, R.P. Mundra v/s The Commercial Tax Officer Saidapet Assessment Circle, Chennai


Company & Directors' Information:- KPL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U23209DL1974PLC029068

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

Company & Directors' Information:- K P COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200GJ1999PTC036317

Company & Directors' Information:- A S COMMERCIAL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1989PTC047016

Company & Directors' Information:- S. V. COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2010PTC145115

Company & Directors' Information:- KPL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29191DL1997PTC090235

Company & Directors' Information:- M V COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101WB2010PTC150651

Company & Directors' Information:- INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999KA1947PTC001117

    W.P. Nos. 1776 & 1777 of 2010

    Decided On, 17 October 2019

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE DR.(MRS.) JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

    For the Petitioner: N. Inbarajan, Advocate. For the Respondents: V. Haribabu, Additional Government Pleader.



Judgment Text


(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ or order of direction or any other Writ in the nature Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the files of the respondent herein in his CST No.732097/2004-05 & TNGST No.6221830/2004-05 dated 24.12.2009 and quash the same.)

1. Two orders of assessments are impugned before me, one framed in terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (in short ' TNGST Act') and second in terms of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short 'CST Act') for the period 2004-05.

2. The petitioner is a dealer in chemicals and had supplied a chemical by the name (Carnal) Tri-Polyphosphate (in short 'chemical'), against Form H declarations to exporters. The exporters were engaged in the export of shirmp ('seafood') that had been treated by dipping the same in the chemical supplied by the petitioner. Complete documentation in regard to the export transactions including bills of lading have been placed on record by the petitioner at the time of assessment. Admittedly, supplies of the chemicals raw ice and Carnal/Tri-Polyphosphate had been effected by the petitioner to exporters of seafood to various destinations all over the world. The seafood had been treated by dipping in the chemical, the purpose of dipping being the preservation of the seafood to ensure that there is no deterioration thereof during the process of export.

3. On the aforesaid admitted facts, the petitioner claimed an exemption in terms of Section 5(3) of the CST Act on the ground that the transactions of supply of chemicals would constitute sale 'in the course of export', the turnover from which was not liable to tax.

4. Initially proceedings under the TNGST and CST Acts had been completed by orders of assessment both dated 19.10.2006, inter alia, noting specifically the claim of exemption against Form H, both for domestic as well as central sales tax. Notices were thereafter issued by the respondent seeking to revise the grant of exemption on the ground that the chemicals supplied had not themselves been exported and what had been exported was only the seafood. Thus, according to the Assessing Officer, there was a lack of identity between the commodity supplied by the petitioner and that exported, as a result that the sale was not 'in the course of export'. The claim for exemption in terms of Section 5(3) was, according to the officer, liable to be rejected. Despite objections from the petitioner, the pre-assessment proposals were confirmed and the impugned orders passed.

5. Before me Mr.N.Inbarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that the chemicals supplied by the petitioner were in the nature of a chemical dip, controlled by strict percentage of ingredients, time of soaking, stirring methodology and other parameters to ensure a specific concoction into which the seafood would be dipped. The treatment of the seafood and the composition of the dip is recorded in the order of assessment as follows:

“D. CHEMICAL DIP:-the product shall be treated as follows:

(i) Mix, by weight, a solution of 2% Carnal 659s, 2% salt in 96% chilled water in DEPB declaration:-(Annexure-III)

“1. That the quality and specification of the goods as stated in the Shipping Bills are in accordance with the terms of the exports contracts entered into with the buyer/consignee pursuance of which the goods are being exported”.

b) Order dated 9/6/2004 issued by Tvl.Peswcanova Foods (India) P.Ltd.

“Product: Black Tiger Peeled and deveined shrimps block frozen (only dark and blusih color shrimps treated with CARNAL and salt.”

c) Order dated 13/06/2005

“(A) Product to be shipped only on approval of quality after inspection”.

(TREATMENT 2 TO 3 % CARNAL & 2% SALT)

d) Order dated 31/8/2005 issued by Tvl.C.E.P.International Inc., Canada

“Product: EZ Peel Black Tiger Headless Shell On Shrimps

Treated with CARNAL & salt”.

6. The buyer specifically required treatment of the seafood in the specified customised chemical dip supplied by the petitioner to the exporter.

7. Neither the orders of assessment nor Mr. V. Haribabu, learned AGP would dispute the position that the purpose of dipping is to ensure preservation and maintenance of the quality of the seafood till it arrived for consumption in the destination country.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the following judgments of the Supreme Court: (i) Vijayalaxmi Cashew Company v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [(1996) 100 STC 571]; (ii) Satnam Overseas (Export) v. State of Haryana [(2003) 130 STC 107].

9. The Supreme Court, in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Azad Coach Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Another [(2010) 36 VST 1] had occasion to decide whether supply of bus bodies by the assessee in that case to an exporter, who had ultimately exported buses that were finished in all respects, would be entitled to a claim under Section 5(3) of the CST Act. The Bench considered the earlier judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Vijaylaxmi Cashew Company (supra) and Santham Overseas (Export) (supra) and after a detailed examination of the matter, set out the test and principles that would emerge upon analysing the Statement of Objects and Reasons for Amending Act 103 of 1976, that introduced Section 5(3) of the Act, as follows:

When we analyze all these decisions in the light of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amending Act 103 of 1976 and on the interpretation placed on Section 5(3) of the CST Act, the following principles emerge:

- To constitute a sale in the course of export there must be an intention on the part of both the buyer and the seller to export;

- There must be obligation to export, and there must be an actual export.

- The obligation may arise by reason of statute, contract between the parties, or from mutual understanding or agreement between them, or even from the nature of the transaction which links the sale to export.

- To occasion export there must exist such a bond between the contract of sale and the actual exportation, that each link is inextricably connected with the one immediately preceding it, without which a transaction sale cannot be called a sale in the course of export of goods out of the territory of India.

10. The Statement of Objects and Reasons that has been noted by the Supreme Court is extracted hereunder:

Before examining the rival contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amending Act 103 of 1976 by which Section 5(3) of the CST Act was added. The relevant portion of the Statement of Objects and Reasons reads as under:

".....According to the Export Control Orders, exports of certain goods can be made only by specified agencies such as the State Trading Corporations. In other cases also, manufacturers of goods, particularly in the small scale and medium sectors, have to depend upon some experienced export house for exporting the goods because special expertise is needed for carrying on export trade. A sale of goods made to an export canalizing agency such as the State Trading Corporation or to an export house to enable such agency or export house to export those goods in compliance with an existing contract or order is inextricably connected with the export of the goods. Further, if such sales do not qualify as sales in the course of export, they would be liable to States sales tax and there would be a corresponding increase in the price of the goods. This would make our exports uncompetitive in the fiercely competitive international markets. It is, therefore, proposed to amend, with effect from the beginning of the current financial year, Section 5 of the Central Sales Tax Act to provide that the last sale or purchase of any goods preceding the sale or purchase occasioning export of those goods out of the territory of India shall also be deemed to be in the course of such export if such last sale or purchase took place after, and was for the purpose of complying with, the agreement or order, for, or in relation to, such export."

11. The provisions of Section 5(3) of the CST Act are relevant for our understanding of the matter and read as follows:

5.When is a sale or purchase of goods said to take place in the course of import or export.-

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the last sale or purchase of any goods preceding the sale or purchase occasioning the export of those goods out of the Territory of India shall also be deemed to be in the course of such export, if such last sale or purchase took place after, and was for the purpose of complying with, the agreement or order for or in relation to such export.

12. In conclusion the Bench holds as follows:

It all depends on the question as to whether the sale or purchase is inextricably connected with the export of goods and not a remote connection as tried to be projected by the counsel. The connection between the penultimate sale and the export of goods should not be casual, accidental or fortuitous, but real, intimate and inter linked, which depends upon the nature of the agreement the exporter has with the foreign buyer and the local manufacturer, the integrated nature of the transactions and the

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

nexus between the penultimate sale and the export sale. 13. In the present case, the chemical dip, which has been supplied by the petitioner to the exporter, forms a critical and vital link in the chain of export seeing as the commodity actually exported, seafood, could not have been exported without chemical dipping. In fact, the invoice of the exporter stipulates that the seafood shall be dipped in the specific chemical mix that has been supplied by the petitioner. Even if that were not so, seafood, being perishable would have to be preserved till such time it is received at its destination. In such a case, all materials utilised/consumed to aid the proper delivery of the seafood at its destination would be necessary for the purpose of export. The use of the phrase occasioning the export in 5(3) refers to all processes that are critical and vital for the process of export itself and the process of dipping as in the present case, is one such process. 14. The impugned orders are set aside and the writ petitions allowed. No costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

13-07-2020 M/s. Vismaya Advertising, Ernakulam, Represented by Its Manager Sunil S. Menon & Another Versus The Intelligence Officer (IB), Department of Commercial Taxes, Mattancherry at Aluva & Others High Court of Kerala
24-06-2020 The Renaissance, Palarivattom, Represented by P.N. Krishnadas, Managing Partner, Residing at Palarivattom, Kochi Versus Commercial Tax Officer (Luxury Tax) Class Towers, Ernakulam & Others High Court of Kerala
17-06-2020 Ministry of Railways Through Divisional Commercial Manager Versus V. Vijay Kumar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-06-2020 M/s. E.V. Mathai & Sons, Represented by Its Managing Partner, Rubber Dealer, Kothamangalam Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
05-06-2020 The Assistant Commissioner (Kvat), Commercial Taxes, Special Circle, Kottayam & Others Versus M/s. Kunnathukalathil Jewellers, Changanassery, Represented by Its Managing Partner K.V. Viswanathan High Court of Kerala
01-06-2020 Birin Spinning Mills Limited, Rep its Director D. Rangaswamy & Others Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Secretary to Government Commercial Taxes Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-05-2020 R. Kannan Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by the Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
19-05-2020 M/s. Krishna Timber & Plywood Versus State of Tamilnadu, rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, CT & Re Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 M/s. Dekshinamoorthi & Co., rep. by its Partner, D. Govindarajan Versus The Commercial Tax Officer & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 Vestas Wind Technology India Private Limited Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Enforcement, Roving Squad, Chengalpet & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 Tvl. Aravind Thiru Ceramics represented by its Proprietor N.K. Thirugnana Sambantham Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Roving Squad, (Enforcement) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 Vega Cotton represented by its proprietor V. Vivekanandan Versus The Check Post Officer, Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Check Point-II, Hosur & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 Sri Venkateshwara Agencies, represented by its proprietor K. Somasundar Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Check Post Officer, Thoppur Inward, Kurinji Nagar & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 M/s. Bharat Steels represented by its Proprietor Gulraj M. Jain Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Broadway Assessment Circle High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-04-2020 Commercial Taxes Officer Versus M/s. Bombay Machinery Store Supreme Court of India
23-03-2020 J. Anbutamilarasi Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary, Commercial Taxes & Registration Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-03-2020 M/s. Inno-Tech Electronics Systems, Rep. by it's Proprietor – M. Ravichandran Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Mylapore Assessment Circle, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
09-03-2020 M/s. Shyam Textiles Limited, Hosur Versus The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-03-2020 The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chennai & Another Versus Ramco Cements Ltd. rep. by its General Manager-Legal Thiru. T. Mathivanan, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Divisional Office, Commercial Branch, Southern Railway, Chennai Versus G. Bharathi High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-03-2020 Active Media Versus Divisional Commercial Manager, Northern Railway High Court of Delhi
04-03-2020 M/s. Commercial Steel Co. Versus ASC Sales Tax High Court of for the State of Telangana
28-02-2020 SPI Cinemas Private Limited, Represented by its Director, K. Niranjan Reddy Versus Commercial Tax Officer, Royapettah Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 Padmesh Cashew Company, Represented by its Proprietor Rajan Kalladan Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Mahe High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 M/s. Hansa Enterprises, Rep by its Proprietrix Pinky Jain Versus The Principal Commissioner & Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 D. Soundararajapandian, Joint Commissioner (ST), Chennai(south), Commercial Taxes Department, Chennai & Others V/S The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary, Commercial Taxes & Registration Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-02-2020 The Chennai Metropolitan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Chennai Versus The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by its principal Secretary, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-02-2020 P. Ponnum Perumal Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to Government (FAC) Commercial Taxes & Registration (H) Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-02-2020 M/s Century Rayon (A division of Century Textile & Industries Ltd.), Maharashtra V/S Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Through its, Chief Engineer (Commercial), Maharashtra And Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
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 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. Sharadha Terry Products Ltd., Coimbatore Versus Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Additional Bench), Commercial Taxes Buildings, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-02-2020 Sri Kumaran Super Market, Dharmapuri District Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Harur Assessment Circle, Dharmapuri District 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
06-02-2020 K. Arumugham, Prop. Seetha Industries, Arakandanalu, Villupuram V/S The Secretary to Government, Department of Commercial Taxes & Religious Endowments, Chennai And Others 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 M/s. Indian Commercial Syndicate, Rep. by its Partner R. Natarajan, Coimbatore Versus The Special Committee, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2020 Reckitt Benckiser (india) Ltd V/S Commissioner Commercial Taxes and Others Supreme Court of India
24-01-2020 Tata Sky Limited, Represented by its Chief Financial Controller, Sambasivan Ganesan, Chennai Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary, Commercial Taxes & Registration Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-01-2020 M/s. P.I. Polymers, Rep. by Proprietrix, Chennai Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Pattarawalkam Assessment Circle, Villivakkam High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2020 Nirmal Kumar Parsan & Others Versus Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Others Supreme Court of India
10-01-2020 M/s. Vira Properties (Madras) Pvt. Ltd, Chennai, Rep. by its Manager, T.M. Damodaran Versus Commercial Tax Officer, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-01-2020 A. Ponnusamy Pillay & Sons Versus The Commercial Tax Officer Karaikkal & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-01-2020 TVL TCS Textiles Private Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatry, R. Mahesh, Tirupur Versus The Prinicipal Secretary & Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-01-2020 Asutosh & Another Versus Commercial Taxes Department (GST) & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
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
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
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
07-11-2019 M/s. Kalyan Jewellers India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its. Manager V/S The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Commercial Taxes, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
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
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
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
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
19-08-2019 M. Saroopchand Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax Department, Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-07-2019 Prajapati Gunwant Keshavlal Versus Union of India, Representing General Manager (Commercial) & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
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 S/s Bright Technologies Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
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 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
09-07-2019 Nagar Palika Parishad Versus M/s. Commercial Marketing Services High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
02-07-2019 M/s. Craft Interiors(P) Ltd. Versus The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Intelligence) & Another 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
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. 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
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
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. 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 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
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
17-04-2019 Den Networks Limited, New Delhi Versus State of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Commercial Taxes, Patna High Court of Judicature at Patna
16-04-2019 Hotel Theni International, Rep. by its Managing Director Vinod Mathew Versus The Assistant Commissioner(CT), Commercial Tax Department, Theni-II Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-04-2019 P M Commercial Co. Ltd. Versus Adjudicating Officer, Securities & Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal