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



M/s. Mega Media Solutions v/s Commissioner Trade & Taxes & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- MEGA CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L65100DL1985PLC092375

Company & Directors' Information:- MEGA CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L01120DL1985PLC092375

Company & Directors' Information:- B K MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH2003PTC266323

Company & Directors' Information:- E 2 E SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2000PTC107313

Company & Directors' Information:- E-SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U30007TN1999PTC043325

Company & Directors' Information:- L AND C MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U92130TN2008PTC066197

Company & Directors' Information:- D S R SOLUTIONS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG1999PLC032008

Company & Directors' Information:- M C MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U92130MH1996PTC098640

Company & Directors' Information:- J. K. SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2014PTC257168

Company & Directors' Information:- I TRADE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120TN1999PLC043813

Company & Directors' Information:- TRADE INDIA LTD [Active] CIN = U51909PB1982PLC004822

Company & Directors' Information:- V A SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG2006PTC049266

Company & Directors' Information:- D P SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U22221DL2000PTC107837

Company & Directors' Information:- MEGA (INDIA) LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U01132WB1982PLC035473

Company & Directors' Information:- I. S. SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U30007TG1997PTC028047

Company & Directors' Information:- L T SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TG2000PTC033248

Company & Directors' Information:- R P TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909AS1999PTC005646

Company & Directors' Information:- A S SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2010PTC202208

Company & Directors' Information:- I S P SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TZ2001PTC009755

Company & Directors' Information:- S P E-SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72300DL2006PTC155569

Company & Directors' Information:- A R TRADE IN PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909AS1999PTC005710

Company & Directors' Information:- MEGA E-SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200WB2012PTC175302

Company & Directors' Information:- N AND S SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210KA1999PTC025555

Company & Directors' Information:- U-TO SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72100MH2000PTC130052

Company & Directors' Information:- O AND M SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210OR2005PTC008166

Company & Directors' Information:- K P R MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900TG2015PTC099363

Company & Directors' Information:- S P SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U72200DL2011PTC213318

Company & Directors' Information:- I T SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL1996PTC076426

Company & Directors' Information:- K B SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140PB2011PTC035055

Company & Directors' Information:- MEDIA 6 (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22211TG2010PTC069036

Company & Directors' Information:- V L MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22222UP2015PTC070065

Company & Directors' Information:- D A MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U22110DL2001PTC111926

Company & Directors' Information:- H A SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC104116

Company & Directors' Information:- C AND C SOLUTIONS (INDIA) LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93000PY1995PLC001144

Company & Directors' Information:- AMP SOLUTIONS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80302CH2001PLC024420

Company & Directors' Information:- G & G MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900PN2013PTC149237

Company & Directors' Information:- T S SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200UP2000PTC025406

Company & Directors' Information:- J. M. MEDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2012PLC231621

Company & Directors' Information:- R R SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45309BR2008PTC013387

Company & Directors' Information:- B A SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2006PTC155492

Company & Directors' Information:- N MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U92100TN2008PTC067723

Company & Directors' Information:- C A AND S SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200AP2000PTC034546

Company & Directors' Information:- R A SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101MH2013PTC249132

Company & Directors' Information:- TRADE SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67190MH2004PTC148244

Company & Directors' Information:- I E MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH1993PTC075096

Company & Directors' Information:- U MEDIA SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U92100TN2009PTC070895

Company & Directors' Information:- I SOLUTIONS(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900TN2004PTC052692

Company & Directors' Information:- C TRADE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900KA2008PTC045372

Company & Directors' Information:- MEDIA INDIA LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74300BR1993PLC005422

Company & Directors' Information:- MEGA SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC105142

Company & Directors' Information:- R G MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999TG1994PTC018512

Company & Directors' Information:- D. K. MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900WB2012PTC187736

Company & Directors' Information:- MEGA MEDIA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U92200WB1988PTC044707

Company & Directors' Information:- S G SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999BR2008PTC013392

Company & Directors' Information:- V N SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL2009PTC195421

Company & Directors' Information:- U S MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74300DL1998PTC091530

Company & Directors' Information:- R. K. SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2007PTC161367

Company & Directors' Information:- S R SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200HR2000PTC055629

Company & Directors' Information:- B E SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200KA2005PTC037127

Company & Directors' Information:- I-W TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93030MH2012PTC233832

Company & Directors' Information:- U M TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67190MH2011PTC224523

Company & Directors' Information:- SOLUTIONS @ PANORAMA TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63040MH2010PTC199347

Company & Directors' Information:- S J TRADE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900MH2010PTC207584

Company & Directors' Information:- S & O MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22190MH2010PTC211481

Company & Directors' Information:- A.N.D SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2013PTC244625

Company & Directors' Information:- V & M SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999PN2014PTC150848

Company & Directors' Information:- K & V MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74300MH2008PTC188833

Company & Directors' Information:- G S R MEDIA SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93090TG2015PTC100977

Company & Directors' Information:- K 4 MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900TG2013PTC091049

Company & Directors' Information:- S A E-SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200WB2012PTC181964

Company & Directors' Information:- O S SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93000JK2012PTC003733

Company & Directors' Information:- B AND P SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24100CH2015PTC035482

Company & Directors' Information:- A T SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900CH2009PTC031621

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND D SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52392CH2010PTC032232

Company & Directors' Information:- G S L SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72300DL2007PTC164747

Company & Directors' Information:- F K SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2008PTC186101

Company & Directors' Information:- B. R. SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2002PTC116699

Company & Directors' Information:- S & T SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL2013PTC247089

Company & Directors' Information:- M A SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2014PTC265618

Company & Directors' Information:- S A N SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2002PTC117534

Company & Directors' Information:- I G SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109DL2012PTC244223

Company & Directors' Information:- H R SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC073143

Company & Directors' Information:- A 2 Z SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL2001PTC109658

Company & Directors' Information:- A P D SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL2013PTC249969

Company & Directors' Information:- V R A A P SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74950DL2014PTC271337

Company & Directors' Information:- S & N MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900BR2013PTC020667

Company & Directors' Information:- MEDIA-N-SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74300MP2003PTC015693

Company & Directors' Information:- H A E MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999HR2011PTC042765

Company & Directors' Information:- V SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200KA2010PTC052832

Company & Directors' Information:- N R L SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900KA2013PTC069148

Company & Directors' Information:- R P MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U92130KA2013PTC071267

Company & Directors' Information:- S V SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140GJ2007PTC051390

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND M MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74300DL2000PTC103350

Company & Directors' Information:- K MEDIA PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U01222WB1991PTC053599

Company & Directors' Information:- A & A SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200PN2008PTC131887

Company & Directors' Information:- T N B SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900MH2007GAT171606

Company & Directors' Information:- E-MEDIA SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900TN2001PTC048113

Company & Directors' Information:- H F SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72300DL2007PTC168577

Company & Directors' Information:- K V M SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2008PTC180136

Company & Directors' Information:- MEDIA SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U22219MP2008PTC020895

Company & Directors' Information:- T & T SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900GJ2007PTC051103

    W.P.(C). No. 9282 of 2017

    Decided On, 17 July 2019

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH

    For the Petitioner: Varun Nischal, Arif Ahmed Khan, Gaumi Grover, Manoj Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondents: Satyakam, ASC.



Judgment Text

Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.

1. This is yet another case where the Respondents are seeking to avoid granting refund to the Petitioner on the basis of ‘zero demand orders’

2. The practice of passing ‘zero demand’ orders to deny refunds was frowned upon by this Court even earlier. Illustratively, reference may be made to the orders dated 21st November, 2016 in W.P.(C) No.9252/2016 (Aesthetic Packaging v. Commissioner of VAT) and 6th August, 2018 in W.P.(C) No.1563/2018 (M/s Arora Enterprises v. Commissioner, Trade & Taxes). Yet, the practice has not stopped.

3. This petition itself has a chequered history. The Petitioner is a proprietorship registered under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (‘DVAT Act’) as well as the Central Sales Tax Act, 1957 (‘CST Act’). The Court is informed that the Petitioner has since sought cancellation of the CST registration. The Petitioner filed the present petition aggrieved by the denial of refund in the total sum of Rs.133,87,364/-, in respect of the tax periods from May to December, 2010 and January, February, March and May, 2011. Paragraph 2 of the writ petition sets out the details of the refund amount claimed for each of the above assessment periods and the dates of the respective returns in which refunds were made. Admittedly, the earliest of those returns is dated 25th June, 2010 and the last of such returns (for May, 2011) is 26th June, 2011.

4. In response to the notice issued in this petition, a reply was filed on 4th January, 2018 by the Respondents alleging suppression of material facts by the Petitioner. It is stated in para 5 of the counter affidavit that the refunds for the periods July, 2010 to March, 2011 and May, 2011 were disallowed by the then Assessing Authority on the ground that the dealer did not furnish the required information despite time being given to him under Section 59 (2) of the DVAT Act. It was accordingly contended that the Petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands. It was stated that by 12th July, 2012, the Petitioner had not furnished any document pertaining to the above period i.e. July, 2010 to March, 2011 and May, 2011 and that the refund claims for the said periods were rejected by orders passed on 1st August, 2012 and 3rd August, 2012. It was contended that the Petitioner had not challenged those orders in accordance with law and, therefore, the petition itself was not bonafide.

5. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner had filed CM No.747/2018 to bring on record additional documents in support of its claim for refund.

6. The Court initially passed an order on 5th July, 2018 disposing of the present writ petition, inter alia, observing that if the Petitioner was aggrieved by the adjudication of its claims for refund “and having regard to its assertions that the orders were never received by it”, it was open to the Petitioner “to seek copies of such order or orders and prefer appeals”. It was observed that in the event that the Petitioner preferred the appeals within 30 days of receipt of such orders, they would be considered by the Objection Hearing Authority (‘OHA’) on their merits. It was noted in the order that the copies of the orders rejecting the refunds claims for the periods July, 2010 to March, 2011 “are being handed over to the counsel for the Petitioner”.

7. Soon thereafter, the Petitioner filed Review Petition No.274/2018. Inter alia, it was pointed out by the Petitioner that after going through the documents handed over to the counsel for the Petitioner by the counsel for the Respondent, it was found that there were material facts, statutory provisions and judgments which were not brought to the notice of the Court. The new material documents revealed that for the tax period 2010-11, orders raising ‘zero demand’ had been passed and since these were not available earlier to the Petitioner and there were no disputed facts, “nothing survives for the OHA to decide”.

8. A reply was filed to the review petition by the Respondents, inter alia, pointing out that a set of scanned orders were emailed to the counsel for the Petitioner on 26th October, 2017. It is pointed out that from the annexures to the review petition it was plain that the earlier assertions by the Petitioner about not receiving the orders were false. It was pointed out that along with the review petition, the Petitioner itself had submitted copies of some of the orders made available to it in 2014 itself. It was accordingly prayed that the review petition be dismissed.

9. The review petition came up for hearing before this Court on 28th September, 2018. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:

“This Court had merely disposed of the order on the assumption that the petitioner can approach the Objection Hearing Authority (hereafter 'OHA'). It is apparent from the order issued at the relevant time that the so-called assessments were completed without any demand since the VATO indicated 'zero' demand. In these circumstances, the merits of the petition need to be gone into - including as to whether the Court should or should not entertain the question of refund belatedly. Review petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.”

10. By the same order, the Court also permitted the parties to file further affidavits “if needed”.

11. Pursuant thereto, the Respondents filed an additional affidavit on 15th December, 2018. This affidavit basically reiterated the earlier stand of the Respondents that the refunds claims already stood rejected. Reference was made to the notices issued to the Petitioner under Section 59 (2) of the DVAT Act to produce documents, to which the Petitioner did not respond. It was contended that the writ petition was barred by laches since the department “cannot reopen the assessment and rectify the defect in these orders”. It was reiterated that there is suppression of material facts in the petition and that the claim was barred by laches. Again, copies of the orders sent to the counsel for the Petitioner were enclosed with this affidavit.

12. The Petitioner has on 18th January, 2019 filed a response to the above additional affidavit setting out the history of the present case. It is pointed out that the Respondent is relying on ‘zero demand orders’ to deny refund and that in similar instances, this Court had negated such attempts. It is pointed out further that in another case involving a similar denial of refund on account of a ‘zero demand order’, viz., W.P.(C) No. 8849/2018 (Vijiman Electronic Pvt. Ltd. v Commissioner of Trade & Taxes), the Respondents had voluntarily withdrawn the zero demand orders and issued refunds for the period of 2009-10 along with interest. It is pointed out that an order dated 24th October, 2017 was passed issuing refund to the Petitioner for the period May, 2010, but in the ‘remarks section’, an assessment was framed in the refund order itself and this was done only to defeat the refund claim of the Petitioner for that period. For June, 2010, a refund order had been issued without interest on the refund amount. This was in the teeth of the judgment of this Court in IJM Corporation Berhad v. CT&T (2018) 48 GSTR 102 (Del). It is pointed out that in the refund order from May, 2010, the Respondents had illegally deducted up-to-date interest @ 15% per annum from 2010 onwards while, at the same time, denying the Petitioner statutory interest @ 6% on account of delay.

13. This Court has heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the Petitioner reiterated what has been urged in the main petition, and the additional affidavit, which has been referred to hereinbefore. He submitted that there was no justification in law for denying refund on the basis of such ‘zero demand orders’.

14. Mr Satyakam, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, reiterated the contention regarding suppression of material facts by the Petitioner and not coming to the Court with ‘clean hands’. He also brought up the issue of the petition being barred by ‘laches’. While he was not in a position to defend the ‘zero demand orders’, his contention was that the conduct of the Petitioner should disentitle it to any relief.

15. The above two aspects raised by the Respondents i.e. the suppression of material facts by the Petitioner, and ‘laches’, were raised by the Respondents even earlier in response to the review petition filed by the Petitioner. Nevertheless, this Court allowed the review petition in the manner indicated hereinbefore, thereby rejecting the above pleas. This Court was of the view that the writ petition had to be heard on merits. The parties were permitted to file additional affidavits. This liberty was utilized by the Respondents to file an additional affidavit reiterating the same pleas, which it did in response to the review petition.

16. The plea of the Respondents that the Petitioner was already aware of these orders in 2014 did not find favour with this Court when it was first raised in the reply to the review petition. In fact, the review petition was allowed and it was directed that the writ petition be heard on merits. That order, allowing the review petition, has attained finality. The plea of laches and suppression of material facts having been impliedly rejected by this Court earlier, cannot be permitted to be raised again in these proceedings.

17. Even otherwise the plea of laches raised by the Respondents seems to be futile. On their own showing, the Respondents have for two periods i.e. May, 2010 and June, 2010, granted refunds to this very Petitioner by passing separate orders in January 2018. However, the order granting refund for May, 2010 is strange. While on the one hand, it accepts the plea for refund, it utilizes that opportunity to create a demand in the ‘remarks column’ and additionally charges interest on the Petitioner for more than 10 years. The Court can only speculate that this reveals either a total non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer or that the software is so riddled with errors that it produces orders of that kind. Likewise for the period June, 2010, refund was granted while denying interest that is due to the Petitioner for the period in question. If for these months of May and June, 2010, refund orders could be passed on January 2018, then clearly the Respondents were not allowing the plea of ‘laches’ to come in the way of grant of refund. In any event, the orders denying refund were never ever communicated to the Petitioner till the filing of the present petition.

18. The fact of the matter is that the only ground on which refund has been refused to the Petitioner is the passing of ‘zero demand orders’, which have been enclosed by the Respondents themselves to the additional affidavit filed by them. The Court is further informed that the copies of such orders were handed over in Court on the first date of hearing of the writ petition itself.

19. When repeatedly asked as to what is the purpose of passing such ‘zero demand’ orders, and then requiring the dealer to challenge such orders in accordance with law before the OHA, the learned counsel for the Respondents was unable to give any satisfactory answer. The fact also remains that the earlier orders of this Court in Aesthetic Packaging v. Commissioner of VAT (supra) and M/s Arora Enterprises v. Commissioner, Trade & Taxes (supra) and other similar orders including the order dated 22nd May, 2019 in W.P.(C) No. 8851/2018 (M/s. Robust Technologies Inc. v. Commissioner of Trade & Taxes) are all within the knowledge of the Respondents. There is no purpose served in passing such ‘zero demand’ orders as they end up only multiplying litigation needlessly and delaying the grant of refunds to which the deale

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

rs are legitimately entitled. 20. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the pleas raised by the Respondents to deny the Petitioner the refunds are not sustainable in law and are hereby rejected. 21. The question now remains as to the consequential orders that are required to be passed. Of the entire period for which refund has been claimed in the present petition, orders granting refund have been passed only for two months i.e. May and June, 2010, and that too erroneously. Consequently, even those orders are required to be set aside by this Court. 22. A direction is now issued to the Respondents to process the Petitioner’s claim for refunds, without raising any of the objections that have been raised before this Court and proceed to issue the refund orders in accordance with law, together with the interest due on the refund amounts, not later than eight weeks from today. The Court makes it clear that the refund amount together with interest should be credited to the Petitioner’s account within the above period, failing which the Respondents will be liable for wilful disobedience of this Court’s orders. 23. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms, but in the circumstances, with no orders as to cost. 24. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

07-10-2020 M/s. Ikea Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Trade & Tax, Department of Trade & Taxes High Court of Delhi
23-09-2020 M. Umapathy & Another Versus The Joint Commissioner of Labour-I, (Registrar of Trade Union), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-06-2020 M/s. Acme Trade And Agencies, ASSAM Versus Union of India Rep. By The Secy. to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-06-2020 M/s. Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director Reethamma Joseph & Another Versus M/s. Venturetech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director N. Mal Reddy High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-06-2020 Entertainment City Ltd. Versus Aspek Media Private Ltd. High Court of Delhi
01-06-2020 Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. & Another Versus Sobhagya Media Pvt. Ltd. (Apn Live) & Others High Court of Delhi
26-05-2020 Orion Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
21-05-2020 Intellectual Property Attorneys Association (Ipaa) & Another Versus The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks & Another High Court of Delhi
20-05-2020 Anil Chamadia Versus The Chairman Media Advisory Committee Rajya Sabha & Others High Court of Delhi
04-05-2020 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Authorized Signatory Versus The Appellate Authority under Section 48(1) of the A.P. Shops & Establishments Act, 1988 & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-05-2020 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd V/S The Assistant Commissioner of Labour And Two Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
30-04-2020 R.K. Digital Solutions Versus Union of India & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
19-03-2020 R. Raghavan, Partner of Dinamalar Group, Dinamalar (RF) New Standard Press Annex, Trichy & Others Versus Educomp Solutions Ltd, Through its Senior Manager Nithish Kumar & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
13-03-2020 M.G. Mohan Kumar & Others Versus American Road Technology & Solutions Private Limited, Bengalore National Company Law Tribunal Bengaluru
09-03-2020 Narendra Hirawat & Co. Versus Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 M/s. Sonti Soft Solutions Pvt Ltd. Versus Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-03-2020 Picturehouse Media Ltd., Chennai Versus Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. & Another SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
04-03-2020 Active Media Versus Divisional Commercial Manager, Northern Railway High Court of Delhi
04-03-2020 Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Limited V/S Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payer Unit-1 Supreme Court of India
03-03-2020 Nims University Versus Valuer HR E-Solutions Pvt Ltd. High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
28-02-2020 T.M.P. Ananthasayanan & Others Versus P. Madhavan, Additional Registrar of Trade Unions & Joint Commissioner of Labour, Vellore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-02-2020 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions Pvt Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit-I & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-02-2020 Kamal Encon Industries Limited Through its Authorized Representative Versus Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary World Trade Centre, Mumbai & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
24-02-2020 Rubtub Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd. (MMT) & Others Competition Commission of India
21-02-2020 Batliboi Renewable Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly known as Batliboi EnXco Pvt. Ltd.,) Represented by Rajiv, Senior Manager (Accounts) Versus M/s. Sri Vinayaga Enterprises, Represented by its Proprietor R. Ganesan High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-02-2020 Union of India, Represented by The Secretary to Government, M/o.Commerce & Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi & Others Versus Rema Srinivasan Iyengar, Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks & GI, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-02-2020 HT Media Limited & Another Versus WWW.THEWORLDNEWS.NET & Others High Court of Delhi
07-02-2020 India Affordable Housing Solutions, (IAHS) & Another Versus Konark Infra Developers Private Limited & Others High Court of Delhi
03-02-2020 M/s. R.K. Digital Solutions Versus Union of India & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
30-01-2020 M/s. P.A. Footwear Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, S.V. Kumaragurparasamy Versus The Director General of Foreign Trade, Directorate General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2020 NR Raghuram & Co, Rep by its Proprietor N. Raghuraman Versus Indian Banks' Association, World Trade Centre, Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-01-2020 M/s. Devendra Autocom Private Limited, Ambattur, Rep. by its Executive Director V/S M/s. Traverse Infortechh Solutions Ltd., Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-01-2020 Justice Valluri Seethamahalakshmi Versus Sara Chandra Environ Solutions Pvt Ltd. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
22-01-2020 Bharati Ghosh Versus M/s. Rajib Home Solutions Rep. by its prop., Rajib Das West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
16-01-2020 Pulari Agro Solutions, Poopara, Idukki, Represented by Its Managing Partner, Lambhodharan Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
16-01-2020 Vishal Mega Mart, Through its Manager Versus Paramjeet Kaur Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panchkula
09-01-2020 M/s.Magic Frames, Chennai & Others Versus M/s. Radiance Media P. Ltd., Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-01-2020 Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata - I (TDS) Versus Media World Wide Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
06-01-2020 M/s Arafat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Manager (Personnel & Relation) S.H.A. Rizvi & Others Versus M/s. J.K. Synthetics Majdoor Union (Rajasthan Trade Union Kendra), Through Its General Secretary & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
02-01-2020 Gemini Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Trivandrum Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench, Bangalore
19-12-2019 M/s. Shine Medias, a partnership firm Represented by its Partner R. Mahesh Versus M/s. Trac Media Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its CEO, Ekkattuthangal High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-12-2019 Centre for Indian Trade Union (CITU), Head Load Workers Unit, Kottayi, Palakkad, Represented by Its Secretary & Others Versus Intercontinental Traders, Kottayi, Palakkad, Represented by Its Managing Director & Others High Court of Kerala
06-12-2019 The Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai – V Commissionerate Versus M/s. Reliance Media Works Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s. Adlabs Films Ltd.) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-12-2019 Anantara Solutions Pvt Ltd. Versus Aumkar Supply Chain Solution High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-12-2019 M/s. Aircom Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Represented by Managing Director Kanthi Shetty & Another Versus B.N. Vijayakumar @ N. Vijayakumar High Court of Karnataka
03-12-2019 Starlight Real Estate (Ascot) Mauritius Limited & Another Versus Jagrati Trade Services Private Limited & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
29-11-2019 Imaging Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Haryana & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
28-11-2019 M/s. KTR Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director V. Ramu Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai VIII Commissionerate, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-11-2019 The Managing Director, M/s.A & F Overseas Trade Limited, Pondicherry Versus The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-10-2019 M/s. Educomp Solutions Limited & Another Versus Islamic Residential Higher Secondary School, Malappuram District Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
23-10-2019 Teledata Technology Solutions Versus Official Liquidator High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-10-2019 Vitalo Plastics Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its General Manager, Chennai & Another Versus The Deputy Labour Commissioner (Minimum Wages), (Appellate Authority under Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947), Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-10-2019 Axestrack Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus Harman Singh Arora National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
30-09-2019 Director General of Foreign Trade, Directorate General of Foreign trade, DES.I Section, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-09-2019 Indusind Media & Communications Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Supreme Court of India
23-09-2019 M/s. Kawarlal & Co., Chennai, By its Proprietor K. Ramlal Jain Versus Joint Director General of Foreign Trade O/o. The Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, 'Kendriya Sadan", Koramangala, Bangalore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-09-2019 T.M.P. Ananthasayanan, Tindivanam & Others Versus The Additional Registrar of Trade Unions, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, & Joint Commissioner of Labour, Vellore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-09-2019 Sunita Gupta Trade name M/s. Sunita Investments Versus Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
17-09-2019 Fabrica de Gas Carbonico Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Director, The Directorate of Industries, Trade & Commerce, Government of Goa & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
17-09-2019 M/s. Rajni Exports & Imports, Rep. By its Partner, Rajiv Naaram & Another Versus The Director General of Foreign Trade Ministry of Commerce & Industries, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-09-2019 M/s. Manali Petrochemical Limited, Represented by is Head (Accounts), E.N. Rangaswami, Chennai Versus The Addl. Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-09-2019 M/s. Trade Wings Ltd. Versus Expo Freight Private Ltd. High Court of Karnataka
06-09-2019 Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-08-2019 S. Varadan, Editor-cum-Publisher, Kalaikadir Newspaper, Mahalakshmi Media Private Limited, Salem Versus Vasu Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
22-08-2019 M/s. S. Gurcharan Singh & Sons Versus Commissioner Trade & Taxes & Others High Court of Delhi
20-08-2019 HT Media Limited Versus Government of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
07-08-2019 The Bihar State Electricity Employees Association a registered Trade Union & Others Versus The Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd., Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
07-08-2019 The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department & Others Versus Bihar State non formal cum special education Instructor Union through its Member-cum-Media In-charge, Bhagalpur & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
25-07-2019 M/s. Mukesh Agencies Versus Commissioner, Trade & Taxes & Others High Court of Delhi
24-07-2019 Combined Traders Versus Commissioner of Trade & Taxes High Court of Delhi
22-07-2019 Corsan Corviam Construccion S.A.-Sadhbhav Engineering Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Trade & Taxes High Court of Delhi
17-07-2019 Transformative Learning Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Pawajot Kaur Baweja & Others High Court of Delhi
16-07-2019 M/s. Shiel Trade Venture Private Limited Versus M/s. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited High Court of Delhi
16-07-2019 Jatin Keshruwala Sole Proprietor, Janvi Production through its Power of Attorney Holder Pankaj Keshruwala Versus M/s. DAG Creative Media Pvt. Ltd. through its Director & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-07-2019 Jindal Saw Limited & Another Versus Aperam Stainless Services & Solutions Precision Sas & Others High Court of Delhi
15-07-2019 M/S Dinesh Oil Limited Versus Commissioner Of Trade Tax U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
04-07-2019 Gopalacharya Gautam Versus Chief Editor Himachal Dastak Media House & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
03-07-2019 Prakash Kashiram Sawant & Others Versus M/s. Motherson Advanced Tooling Solutions Limited In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
03-07-2019 Haresh Kumar Laxman Bhai & Co. & Others Versus Commissioner of Trade & Taxes & Another High Court of Delhi
02-07-2019 Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Versus Traffic Media India Pvt. Ltd High Court of Delhi
25-06-2019 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Larger Taxpayer Unit, Nungambakkam High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-06-2019 Mahavir Multi Media, Chennai, Represented by Prakash Chand Chordia, Proprietor Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT), Chintadripet Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-06-2019 M/s. Magic Frames, Partnership Firm, Reg. by its Partner R. Sarath Kumar & Others Versus M/s. Radiance Media P. Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Signatory N. Srinivasan High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-05-2019 Malkiat Singh & Sons Versus Commissioner Trade & Taxes & Another High Court of Delhi
08-05-2019 PSS Security Solutions Through its Sole Proprietor Versus Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Another High Court of Delhi
08-05-2019 Rockwell Industries Versus Commissioner of Trade & Taxes & Another High Court of Delhi
04-05-2019 M/S Gagan Deal Trade Private Limited Versus The Union Of India & Others High Court of Gauhati
03-05-2019 Sure Safety Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
03-05-2019 PCLIT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Versus MTECH Solutions High Court of Delhi
02-05-2019 Indian Potash Ltd. & Others Versus Media Contents & Communication Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
01-05-2019 In the matter of : M/s. Global Supply chain Solutions Private Limited & Another Versus Registrar of Companies, IIIrd Floor, 'A' Block, Sanjay Complex, Jayendraganj Gwalior (M.P.) National Company Law Tribunal Ahmedabad
01-05-2019 Commissioner of Trade & Taxes, Delhi & Others Versus Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd., Super Agencies, M/s. Ingram Micro India Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
30-04-2019 Sodexo Food Solutions India Private Limited [formerly known as Radhakrishna Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd) Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Chennai (Central) Division High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-04-2019 Chhattisgarh Gadiwan Hamal Reza Mazdoor Mahasangh A Registered Trade Versus Union, Reg No. - 3314, Mahasamund Versus Food Corporation of India Through Its General Manager (Region), Chhattisgarh & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
26-04-2019 M/s. Serve & Volley Outdoor Advertising Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus M/s. Times Innovative Media Ltd., Mumbai, Represented by its Assistant Vice President B. Chinnamallikarjun High Court of Karnataka
22-04-2019 Sun Electronics Private Limited Pratham, Gujarat Versus ElecTek Solutions Private Limited & Others Competition Commission of India
16-04-2019 Living Media India Limited & Another Versus Vijayan Madhavan Praveen & Another High Court of Delhi
11-04-2019 Center of Indian Trade Unions, A Federation of Registered Trade Unions Versus State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
08-04-2019 G.K. Mani, President & Others Versus New Generation Media Corporation (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-04-2019 M/s. Vidyut Metallics Pvt. Ltd. Versus Kamgar Ekta a registered Trade Union & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay