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



M/s. Premier Cotton Textiles, represented by its Senior Manager, S. Vaidyanathan, Poolankinar Post, Udumalpet v/s The Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Coimbatore Commissionerate, GST Bhavan, Coimbatore & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- PREMIER LIMITED [Active] CIN = L34103PN1944PLC020842

Company & Directors' Information:- SENIOR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL1996PTC082386

Company & Directors' Information:- B & C TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17299DL1996PTC081977

Company & Directors' Information:- S E TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC057922

Company & Directors' Information:- M A TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17100MH1988PTC049578

Company & Directors' Information:- G S TEXTILES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U17124RJ1982PTC002445

Company & Directors' Information:- PREMIER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52520TG1993PTC016684

Company & Directors' Information:- GST PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27104MH2002PTC136410

Company & Directors' Information:- PREMIER GOODS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52190WB2009PTC133296

Company & Directors' Information:- SERVICE CORPORATION LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U93090KL1946PLC001075

Company & Directors' Information:- PREMIER TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17111TZ2008PTC014141

Company & Directors' Information:- U D TEXTILES COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74990MH2011PTC214136

Company & Directors' Information:- V A TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U17100MH2003PTC139499

Company & Directors' Information:- PREMIER COTTON TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29252TZ1996PTC007017

Company & Directors' Information:- COTTON TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999TN1956PTC000396

    W.P.Nos. 22090 to 22099, 22201 to 22203 & 23547 to 23551 of 2018 & W.M.P.Nos. 25888 to 25897, 26017 to 26019, 27497 to 27501 of 2018

    Decided On, 24 July 2019

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SUNDAR

    For the Petitioner: T. Mohan, Christopher Manoharan, Advocates. For the Respondents: T.R. Senthil Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel for Customs, A.P. Srinivas, Senior Standing Counsel for Customs.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: W.P.No.22090 of 2018 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Prohibition to prohibit the second respondent from proceeding further pursuant to the impugned show cause notice No.25/2017(AC) dated 27.07.2017 bearing C.No.V/52/15/09/2017 C.Ex.Adjn. and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.)

Common Order:

This common order will dispose of these 18 writ petitions.

2. Mr.T.Mohan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of counsel on record for writ petitioners in all 18 writ petitions, Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Senior Standing Counsel on behalf of all respondents in W.P.Nos.23547 to 23551 of 2018 and Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents in W.P.Nos.22090 to 22099 and 22201 to 22203 of 2018 were before this Court.

3. All three aforesaid learned counsel before this Court submitted without any disputation or disagreement that the central theme or in other words, the core issue in these 18 writ petitions is the same and therefore, a common order is being passed. Though obvious, it is made clear that all 18 writ petitions were heard together.

4. These writ petitions have been filed assailing 'Show Cause Notices' ('SCNs' in plural and 'SCN' in singular for brevity) issued to writ petitioners. Though these writ petitions have been filed assailing SCNs, the prayer is not necessarily for issue of writs of certiorari. The prayers are couched in a language wherein and whereby writs of prohibition have been sought qua second respondent (to be noted, second respondent issued the SCNs, which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'impugned SCNs' in plural and 'impugned SCN' in singular). In other words, prayers seek issue of writ of prohibition prohibiting second respondent from proceeding pursuant to impugned SCNs. As it was submitted that these writ petitions may please be treated as petitions assailing impugned SCNs issued by second respondent, this court deems it appropriate to not to delve further into the aspect of language in which prayers are couched. In other words, the hearing proceeded on the basis that impugned SCNs have been assailed.

5. Impugned SCNs have admittedly been issued under section 11A of 'The Central Excise Act, 1944 (Act 1 of 1944)' which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'CE Act' for the sake of brevity.

6. Writ petitioners have Central Excise registration certificates under CE Act besides registrations qua Goods and Service Tax under the relevant statute. It is the case of writ petitioners that they manufacture cotton yarn and the same is being cleared under CE Act, both for domestic consumption as well as export.

7. It is submitted without any disputation by writ petitioners that they availed benefit of exemption under notification No.30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 with regard to domestic sales without availing CENVAT credit on input services. Besides this, writ petitioners also made exports by paying excise duty wherein recourse was taken to Notification No.29/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004, wherein and whereby rebate was claimed under Rule 18 of 'The Central Excise Rules, 2002' ('CER' for brevity).

8. As far as exports are concerned, they were made by payment of duty, however such duty payment was from capital goods CENVAT credit account of writ petitioners. Thereafter, writ petitioners made rebate claims under Rule 18 of CER in respect of consignments that were exported on payment of duty albeit by way of payment from their CENVAT capital goods credit account.

9. These claims for rebate qua excise duty so paid were processed and 'Orders-in-Original' ('OIO' for brevity) were passed by second respondent inter-alia acceding to such rebate claims. Such orders were passed under Section 35E of CE Act. Thereafter, impugned SCNs were issued and as mentioned supra, impugned SCNs were issued by second respondent under section 11A of CE Act.

10. Vide impugned SCNs, writ petitioners who are noticees qua impugned SCNs were called upon to show cause as to why the rebate sanctioned should not be treated as erroneous rebate and recovered from writ petitioners. Writ petitioners noticees were also called upon to show cause as to why interest should not be charged and as to why penalty should not be imposed under relevant rules of CER for making what according to second respondent is willful mis-declaration while claiming the rebate. With regard to this willful mis-declaration, it is to be noticed that it is the case of second respondent that writ petitioners had availed higher drawback by not striking off inapplicable portions relating to CENVAT credit. Vide impugned SCNs, it has been averred that this claim without striking off inapplicable portion has been done willfully with the intention of misdeclaring and misleading which was intended to avail the benefit of higher rate of drawback from the department.

11. This takes us to the central theme / core issue. The central theme / core issue emanating from rival submissions have been captured by this court in proceedings dated 05.07.2019 and the same reads as follows :

“All these 18 writ petitions go together.

2. This Court is informed that the facts are similar. More importantly, this Court is informed that the central theme / core issue which falls for consideration in these 18 writ petitions is the same.

3. Mr.T.Mohan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of counsel on record for petitioners in these 18 writ petitions, Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel (Income Tax) appearing for the two official respondents in some of the writ petitions and Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of both respondents in some other writ petitions, are before this Court.

4. Mr.A.P.Srinivas and Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, together therefore represent the respondents in these 18 writ petitions. In other words all the parties are represented.

5. From preliminary submissions, it comes to light that the central theme / core issue is that Show cause notices (hereinafter referred as 'SCNs' and 'SCN' in singular for brevity) issued by the 2nd respondent in these writ petitions namely jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise purportedly under Section 11 A of the Central Excise Act (hereinafter referred as 'CE Ac' for brevity) have been called in question by the writ petitioners.

6. Suffice to say that the writ petitioners are manufacturing Cotton yarn and with regard to certain consignments exported by them they claim rebate i.e., claim duty that had already been paid on raw materials that have been imported. Request for rebate was acceded to either in part or in full by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter impugned SCNs came to be issued.

7. According to the learned counsel for writ petitioners, proposition that falls for consideration is the request for rebate having been acceded to by the 2nd respondent is an appealable order (appeal under Section 35 E(2) of CE Act). No appeal having been filed by the respondents, a SCN cannot be issued under the garb of 11 A as that amounts to a review of the order in original, wherein prayers for rebate were acceded to either in part or in full.

8. In response, Revenue counsel would contend that Section 11 A provides for issuing SCN under 5 different situations and in the instant case, the duty is 'erroneously refunded' situation. Therefore, whether SCN issued under Section 11 A of CE Act on the ground that duty has been erroneously refunded, is vitiated by a jurisdictional fact issue or lack of jurisdiction, as the orders granting rebate, pursuant to which refund was made, have either attained finality or not assailed as on the date of SCN.

List these matters on 08.07.2019.”

12. To be noted, all three learned counsel before this court submitted that rival submissions in a nutshell and central theme / core issue in 18 writ petitions is as encapsulated and captured by this court in the aforesaid proceedings dated 05.07.2019.

13. As the pivotal rival submissions and core issue as captured in the earlier proceedings have been reproduced supra, the crux and gravamen of these petitions have been set out. Therefore, this court now embarks upon the exercise of dispositive reasoning in paragraphs to follow. In dispositive reasoning, rival submissions made with little elaboration (wherever it is considered imperative) and case laws pressed into service shall also be referred to at relevant places.

14. Learned counsel for writ petitioners placed enormous reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this court in Eveready Industries India Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai reported in 2016 (337) E.L.T. 189 (Mad.). According to learned counsel, Eveready Industries principle is to the effect that a SCN under section 11A of CE Act cannot be issued without assailing relevant refund order made under section 35E of CE Act. It was specifically submitted that order of refund / rebate made under Section 35E of CE Act is appealable under Section 35E(2) of CE Act and therefore, without preferring a statutory appeal, impugned SCN cannot be issued.

15. Adverting to circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi being circulars dated 22.09.1998 and 16.5.2008, learned counsel for writ petitioners submitted that said circulars make it clear that Sections 35E(2) and 11A of CE Act operate in such a manner that a SCN under section 11A is to be issued within the time frame prescribed therein without waiting for finality of appeal under section 35E(2) of CE Act. In other words, it was submitted that a reading of circulars reveals that the Board itself has recognised the obtaining legal position that different periods of limitation / time frames have been prescribed for statutory appeal under section 35E(2) and for issue of SCN under Section 11A of CE Act. If a SCN can be issued without preferring an appeal wherein claimant's request for refund / rebate has been acceded to, there was no need for circulars to the effect that SCN under Section 11A has to be issued (within prescribed time frame) without waiting for finality of appeal under section 35E(2) of CE Act, is learned writ petitioners' counsel's further say.

16. In response, learned Revenue counsel submitted that circulars are only guiding principles and in the instant case, owing to judgment of this Court in Raghav Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2016 (334) E.L.T. 584 (Mad.), what writ petitioners had done is clearly a case of availing double benefit and therefore, second respondent was justified in issuing impugned SCNs.

17. Furthering submissions in this direction, learned Revenue counsel placed huge reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asian Paints (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reported in 2002 (142) E.L.T. 522 (S.C.). Elaborating his submission in this direction, learned Revenue counsel pointed out that (142) E.L.T. 522 Asian Paints case was rendered by a Larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court constituted by Three Hon'ble Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it was held that the order of 'Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal' ('CEGAT' for brevity), more particularly an order made by a Larger Bench of CEGAT with regard to interplay between Sections 35E and 11A of CE Act is correct. This takes us to the order of Larger CEGAT Bench. The order of Larger CEGAT Bench has been reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 433 (Tribunal). Larger CEGAT Bench principle is to the effect that Sections 35E and 11A of CE Act operate in different realms and they are being invoked for different purposes.

18. In (142) ELT 522 (SC) Asian Paints, Larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court while returning a verdict that CEGAT Larger Bench view is correct repelled the contention that recovery of excise duty cannot be made pursuant to an appeal filed after invoking the provisions of section 35E, if the time limit provided under section 11A has expired. In this regard, it was specifically submitted by learned Revenue counsel that it is axiomatic that the converse will also operate. In other words, it was specifically submitted by learned Revenue counsel that a SCN under section 11A can certainly be issued though time limit for preferring an appeal under section 35E(2) had expired.

19. There was also a reference to Madurai Power Corpn. (P.) Ltd. case reported in 2008 (229) E.L.T. 521 (Mad.), but there is no disputation that civil appeal against Madurai Power Corpn. case is pending in Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal No.1858/2009. In other words, this principle is res integra.

20. As already alluded to supra, learned counsel for writ petitioners placed huge reliance on Eveready principle. Learned Revenue counsel submitted that Eveready principle is distinguishable on two aspects. First aspect according to learned Revenue counsel is that on facts, Eveready is a case where assessee's requests for refund was disallowed / rejected. Assessee carried it to Commissioner (Appeals) and the appellate authority set aside the OIO. Thereafter, a SCN was issued and therefore, the principle is to the effect that the department should have only approached the Tribunal against the order of appellate authority. The second distinguishing feature is that Eveready order is dated 03.03.2016, but the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal reported in 2011 (271) E.L.T. 164 (S.C.) which was rendered on 18.8.2011 was not brought to the notice of Hon'ble Division Bench which rendered Eveready order. To be noted, in Grasim Industries, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Section 11A of CE Act provides for right of issuance of SCN if duty has been erroneously refunded to a party without taking recourse to filing of appeal.

21. With regard to Grasim Industries order of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Eveready Industries case of Hon'ble Division Bench, this Court finds that paragraph 13 of Grasim Industries and paragraph 41 of Eveready Industries are of utmost importance and the same read as follows :

Paragraph 13 of Grasim Industries :

“13. Section 11A provides for a right of issuance of show cause notice, if, according to the Department, duty of excise has been erroneously refunded to a party. In the event of such erroneous refund of excise duty, the competent authority may then issue such a show cause notice as provided for under Section 11A, in which case the assessee has to show cause as to why the aforesaid amount of refund, which is erroneously refunded, should not be recovered from him. In such a case, there is no question of filing any appeal, as appropriate remedy as provided under Section 11A is available. “

Paragraph 41 of Eveready Industries :

“41. Insofar as the decision of the Full Bench of the Tribunal in Asian Paints (India) Limited is concerned, the difficulty faced by the Tribunal was the different periods of limitation prescribed under Sections 11A and 35E. The case before the Full Bench of the Tribunal in Asian Paints (India) Limited was on the reverse. As seen from Paragraph 1 of the decision of the Full Bench, the only issue referred for the consideration of the Larger Bench revolved around the limitation prescribed in Section 35E(3) and Section 11A. We are not dealing with a case where there is a logjam between two different provisions. Therefore, the said decision, which was also confirmed by the Supreme Court in Asian Paints (India) Limited [2002 (142) E.L.T. 522], cannot be of any application.”

22. By way of reply to this distinction on two aspects, learned counsel for writ petitioners submitted that whether an OIO has been given finality as in the instant case or whether OIO went against the assessee who succeeded by carrying it in appeal to appellate authority does not make any difference to the principle. With regard to second aspect of distinction qua Eveready which was projected by Revenue counsel, learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that Grasim Industries no doubt was not brought to the notice of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court which passed Eveready order, but Eveready Industries case refers to Panyam Cements case being The Commissioner Customs & Central Excise Vs. Panyam Cements & Minerals Industries Ltd. reported in 2016 (331) E.L.T. 206 (A.P.), which is a judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court and Panyam Cements in turn refers to Grasim Industries.

23. Eveready principle being sheet anchor of writ petitioners' case, this Court has carefully considered the aforesaid two aspects regarding Eveready order. With regard to first aspect, this court is unable to accept the distinction which was attempted to be made by Revenue counsel. Whether writ petitioners succeeded before original authority in OIO or whether they succeeded before appellate authority is of no consequence. The principle is the interplay between Sections 35E and 11A of CE Act to test the question as to whether SCN under section 11A can be issued without assailing the order of refund under Section 35E irrespective of whether it was made by the original authority or by the appellate authority.

24. However, with regard to the second aspect, this court is unable to accept the submission of learned counsel for writ petitioners that because Grasim Industries case has been referred to in Panyam Cements case, which is a judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court and as Panyam Cements case has been referred to in Eveready case, it should be construed that Grasim Industries case has also been considered in Eveready case.

25. When there is direct judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court on interplay between Sections 35E and 11A of CE Act, it ought to have been brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court while Eveready case was argued. To be noted, as already mentioned supra, Grasim Industries case is dated 18.8.2011 and Eveready was rendered only on 03.03.2016. More over, a perusal of Eveready order reveals that Panyam Cements was referred to in the order, but there is no mention about Grasim Industries case in Eveready case. If the submission of learned counsel for writ petitioners is to be accepted, Eveready order should have referred to Grasim Industries. Grasim Industries being an order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, this court considers it appropriate to follow Grasim Industries order and Asian Paints principle laid down by a Larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court.

26. Grasim Industries principle and Asian Paints principle are to the effect that Sections 35E and 11A of CE Act operate in different fields and are being invoked for different purposes.

27. A close perusal of Section 11A reveals that a SCN can be issued under five different situations, namely (a) duty not levied, (b) duty not paid, (c) duty short levied, (d) duty short paid, and (e) duty erroneously refunded. They are five distinct and different situations and circumstances.

28. If the argument of writ petitioners are to be accepted, then the fifth scenario contemplated by Section 11A would be rendered otiose. Provisions of law cannot be read in such a manner. Whereas on the contrary, a constructive and harmonious reading of sections 35E and 11A of CE Act and interplay between the two in a manner understood by a Larger CEGAT Bench which has been held to be correct by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Grasim Industries case would not render the fifth limb of Section 11A, i.e., 'duty erroneously refunded' situation otiose. Therefore, this Court is convinced that Section 11A should necessarily be read in the manner instructively laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Grasim Industries as also Larger Bench of CEGAT. To be noted, the view of Larger Bench of CEGAT reported in (73) E.L.T. 433, for all practical purposes, becomes Hon'ble Supreme Court ratio owing to the doctrine of merger. A perusal of Larger Bench order of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (142) E.L.T. 522 Asian Paints reveals that the order has been passed post leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India or in other words, in a Civil Appeal. Whenever an order is passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court post leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, Kunhayammed principle being a principle laid down in judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court [Kunhayammed and others Vs. State of Kerala and another reported in (2000) 6 SCC 359] operates and therefore, the order carried to Supreme Court merges with that of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the Larger CEGAT Bench view in Asian Paints owing to doctrine of merger is clearly a ratio and rationale of Hon'ble Supreme Court.

29. When a Hon'ble High Court judgment and order of Hon'ble Supreme Court are placed before this Court, no elaboration is required to say that the view of Hon'ble Supreme Court is the one which has to obviously be followed. However, a closer reading of Eveready case reveals that Eveready itself refers to Asian Paints case, but Asian Paints was distinguished on facts. This comes out very clearly from paragraph 41 of Eveready case which has been extracted and reproduced supra.

30. In paragraph 41, it has been clearly held that Eveready is not a case where the court was dealing with a logjam between sections 35E and 11A. In the considered view and opinion of this Court, the instant cases on hand are clearly those where writ petitioners' case is predicated on a logjam between the two provisions. In other words, writ petitioners are protagonists of this logjam between sections 35E and 11A of CE Act as these writ petitions are predicated on this sheet anchor submission as alluded to supra.

31. With regard to aforementioned Raghav Industries case and with regard to double benefit, this Court refrains itself from expressing any view as this Court is inclined to sustain impugned SCNs. If any view is expressed by this Court with regard to double benefit theory flowing from Raghav Industries, it would bind the second respondent and impact the adjudication pursuant to impugned SCNs and therefore, this Court refrains itself from treading into that arena.

32. This Court has already extracted and reproduced 05.07.2019 proceedings, wherein the rival submissions in a nutshell and narrowed down the core issue that emanates from the same, have been captured.

33. This takes us to the scope of exercise of writ jurisdiction when SCNs are challenged. No elaboration is required to say that the scope of interference in writ jurisdiction is very limited when SCNs are called in question. The exceptions to this rule are very few and in the instant case, as alluded to supra, the exception was projected on the basis of jurisdictional fact. As jurisdictional fact, i.e., preferring an appeal again

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

st OIO has been answered against writ petitioners, it follows as a sequitter that this case does not fall in any of the exceptions to the rule of limited and restricted exercise of writ jurisdiction when SCNs are assailed in writ jurisdiction. 34. This Court also reminds itself of a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunisetty Satyanarayana case being Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that interference in SCNs in writ jurisdiction should be in rare and exceptional cases. Relevant paragraphs are paragraphs 15 and 16 and the same read as follows : “15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet. 16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter. “ (underlining made by this court to supply emphasis and highlight) 35. Owing to the narrative thus far, in the considered view of this Court, instant cases on hand certainly do not fall under rare and exceptional cases warranting interference in impugned SCNs. Though obvious, it is made clear that when adjudication pursuant to impugned SCNs proceed, it will be open to writ petitioners to submit that they have not availed double benefit and obviously, this aspect will also be adjudicated upon on merits. As already alluded to supra, this is one of the main reasons as to why this court has refrained and restrained itself from expressing any opinion on this aspect of the matter. Suffice to say that this Court is informed that Raghav Industries case has been carried in appeal, i.e., intra court appeal vide W.A.No.429 of 2016 and that the same is pending, but there is no disputation that Raghav Industries case has not been stayed. 36. Sum totality of the narrative thus far and dispositive reasoning set out supra leaves this court with the considered view that impugned SCNs do not deserve to be interfered with and that impugned SCNs have to be carried to their logical end. 37. Consequently, all writ petitions fail and all 18 writ petitions are dismissed. As a result, all writ miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. Considering the nature of the matter, parties are left to bear their respective costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

14-09-2020 Tamil Nadu Atomic Power Employees Union (A Government of India Enterprise), Rep.by its President, Kanchipuram Versus Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., (A Government of India Enterprise), Rep.by its Senior Manager(Personal & Industrial Relations), Madras Atomic Power Station, Kanchipuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-09-2020 A. Jegarajan Versus The Secretary to Government, Handloom, Khadi & Textiles Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
09-09-2020 Padmavathi Hospitality and Facilities Management Service, Rep. by its Authorized Representative J. Anjananandan Versus The Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation, (A Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2020 The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Rep. by its Secretary, Chennai Versus P. Muthian High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-09-2020 Rajesh Kumar Singh Versus State Public Service Tribunal Thru.Chairman & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
02-09-2020 Audumber Narayan Wadadekar & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Department of Co-operation & Textiles, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-08-2020 M/s. Vantage Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Authorised Signatory & Senior Operations Manager, A. Amalanathan Versus Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-08-2020 Venkateshvara Logistics Fleet, Represented by its Authorized Representative Rachya, Hubballi Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bijapur Division, Vijayapur High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
18-08-2020 Goods & Service Tax Network Versus Information Commissioner, Cic & Anr High Court of Delhi
14-08-2020 T.V. Maniyappan & Another Versus Pattanakkad Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
14-08-2020 P.P. Suresh Kumar, Managing Director, Kerala Communications Cable Ltd., Kochi & Another Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
13-08-2020 P. Balamurugan Versus The Controller of Examinations, The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-08-2020 Syed Ahmar Ali Hasmi Versus Union Public Service Commission, through Secretary Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
05-08-2020 Doosan Infracore India Private Limited, Rep., by N. Krishnakumar Versus The Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-08-2020 M/s. Siti Cable Network Ltd. & Another Versus Commissioner of Service Tax & Another Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
04-08-2020 The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissinerate, Chennai Versus M/s. Saksoft Ltd., Perungudi, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-08-2020 The Managing Committee, (Under Order of Suspension), The Vellathooval Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Represented by Its President Versus The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General), Office of The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General), Idukki & Others High Court of Kerala
03-08-2020 Premier Limited Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
31-07-2020 M/s. The Ramco Cements Ltd., Cement Grinding Unit, Kancheepuram Versus Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (South Zonal Bench), Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-07-2020 The Karassery Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kozhikode, Represented by Its General Manager Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Department of Co-Operative Societies, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
27-07-2020 M/s. Sainath Security Force & Man Power Service, Represented by its Proprietor B.S. Mannur Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Under Secretary, Bangaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
16-07-2020 Cheriyan Mathew, Member, The Kanakkary Service Cooperative Bank Limited & Others Versus The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General), Kottayam & Another High Court of Kerala
15-07-2020 Nasir @ Nasir Ulla Khan & Another Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by the Senior Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 M/s. Sanwaliya Tractor Sales & Service, Rajasthan & Others Versus Bhagwati Devi Bhatt & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-07-2020 Prabhat Ranjan Deo Versus Union Public Service Commission & Others High Court of Delhi
13-07-2020 Premier Employees & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-07-2020 Subhash Joshi & Another Versus Director General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
30-06-2020 Parasnath Tiwari Versus Senior Post Master, Post Office Head Office, Uttar Pradesh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-06-2020 U. Manikandan, Mani Poultry Farm, Annamooli, Palakkad Versus The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, State GST Department, Special Circle, Palakkad & Another High Court of Kerala
24-06-2020 M.P. Satheesan, Senior Manager (Retired), Kannur District Co-Operative Bank, Kannur Versus The Kannur District Co-Operative Bank, Represented by General Manager, Kannur & Others High Court of Kerala
23-06-2020 M/s. Jain Textiles, Ashok Jain Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-06-2020 Sri Bhagavathy Dyes & Chemicals, Kochi, Represented by Its Proprietor, B. Ravindranath Versus Alleppey Parcel Service, Alappuzha, Represented by T.T. Kuruvila, Proprietor & Others High Court of Kerala
17-06-2020 S. Selvam Versus The Senior Manager – HRD Air India Limited, (Now known as National Aviation Company of India Limited), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-06-2020 Ventura Textiles Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-Mumbai City-11 High Court of Judicature at Bombay
11-06-2020 Hanumanthappa Pathrera Lakshmana Versus State by Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Goods & Service Tax Intelligence, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
09-06-2020 Tommy Hilfiger Europe B.V. Versus M/s. Taqua Textiles & Others High Court of Delhi
04-06-2020 The Karnataka Public Service Commission, Represented by its Secretary Versus Dr. S.S. Madhukeshwara & Another High Court of Karnataka
02-06-2020 K. Saravanakumar Versus The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Pappu Ram Jat Versus Rajasthan Subordinate & Ministerial Service Selection Board High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
22-05-2020 Dhiraj Milind Dhurve Versus Union Public Service Commission & Another High Court of Delhi
22-05-2020 M/s Gauri Shankar Indane Service, Patna Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
20-05-2020 The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Ernakulam Versus M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Kochi Refinery, Ambalamugal, Represented by The Chief Finance Manager High Court of Kerala
11-05-2020 M/s. Kopalle Pharma Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Versus Senior Intelligence Officer High Court of for the State of Telangana
08-05-2020 M/s. Suryadev Alloys & Power Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, Govind Gagoria & Another Versus M/s. Shri Govindaraja Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Director, Aruppukottai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-05-2020 The Manager, Wallardie Estate, Harrisons Malayalam Ltd., Vandiperiyar, Represented by Senior Manager (Legal), Sumith Babu Versus The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Kottayam & Others High Court of Kerala
21-04-2020 For the Appellants: Amit Saxena (Senior Advocate) assisted by Abhishek Srivastava, Advocates. For the Respondent: Ajit Kumar, Punit Khare, Advocates. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
30-03-2020 Dr. A.E. Chelliah, Senior Advocate Versus The Chairman & Members of the Bar Council of Tamizh Naadu & Puducherry Represented by its Secretary High Court Complex, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-03-2020 Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Others Versus Megha Sharma & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
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
19-03-2020 Jagdish Kumar Choudhary & Others Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
17-03-2020 P.B. Biju Versus The Managing Committee of The Vayyattupuzha Service Co-Operative Bank, Ltd No. Q 354, Represented by Its President, Pathanamthitta District & Others High Court of Kerala
16-03-2020 Jeevan Niwas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra through Department of Co-operation & Textiles, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-03-2020 The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai Outer, Chennai V/S The Glovis India Private Limited, F-98, Kancheepuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-03-2020 The Senior General Manager, Heavy Alloy Penetrator Project Ministry of Defence, Trichy Versus The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rep. By its Presiding Officer, 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
06-03-2020 Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing Division) Senior Area Manager, West Bengal Versus Biswanath Adhikary & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-03-2020 Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Divisional Office, Commercial Branch, Southern Railway, Chennai Versus G. Bharathi High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-03-2020 Dr.(Mrs) Sania Akhtar, Working as Principal Director (Senior Principal Scientist), Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology SARP, Bangalore Versus The Director General, Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology, Ministry of Chemical & Fertilizers, Guindy, Chennai & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench
03-03-2020 Md. Waheed V/S The Telangana State Public Service Commission In The High Court Of State Of Telangana
02-03-2020 K.P. Manoj, Senior Accounts Officer, O/O. The Accountant General (A ANS E) Kerala, Ernakulam Branch Versus The Comptroller & Auditor General of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
28-02-2020 M/s. Padmavathi Hospitality & Facilities Management Services, Rep. by its Partner & Authorized Representative Pradeep Kanumuri & Another V/S The Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation (A Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking) Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Represented by its Senior Manager(RS) & Power Agent, S. Gunasekaran Versus V. Sudhakar & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-02-2020 N.A. Eswaramurthi Versus Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Rep.by its Member Secretary, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-02-2020 J. Anbazhagan Versus The Chairman The Tamilnadu Public Service Commission, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-02-2020 Kerala Public Service Commission, Represented by Its Secretary, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram V/S P. Priya And Others High Court of Kerala
24-02-2020 P.H. Thajudeen Versus Secretary, Pathanamthitta Service Co-op: Bank Ltd., Near Govt. Hospital, Pathanamthitta & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
21-02-2020 M/s. Hwashin Automative India Pvt. Ltd., Sriperumbudur Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Poonamallee Division, (Not known as the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Irungattukottai Division), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
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
21-02-2020 CP Cell, Directorate General Ordnance Service, Informant Master General of Ordnance Service, CP Cell/OS Dte, New Delhi V/S M/s AVR Enterprises, Kanpur & Another Competition Commission of India
20-02-2020 P. Saju, Senior Grade Printer, Government Central Press, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary To Government, Higher Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
20-02-2020 M/s. Sri Muni Pachaiyappan Textiles Pvt. Ltd, Represented by A.M. Munusamy Mudaliyar, Managing Director Versus Customs & Central Excise Settlement Commission, Additional Bench & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-02-2020 M/s. Premier Garment Processing, Rep. by its Proprietor, Ibrahim Shah V/S The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-02-2020 M/s. Millions Fashion, Chennai Versus The Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai & Another 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
18-02-2020 Vidya Devarajan & Another Versus The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 Principal Commissioner Goods & Service Tax Delhi South Versus Premium Real Estate Developers High Court of Delhi
17-02-2020 M/s. Carenow Medical Prviate Limited, Rep. by its Director & the auth. Rep.T.Rajkumar Versus Rajesh Sodhi, The Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhavnagar Versus M/s. Pipavav Shipyard Limited (100 Percent Eou) High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
14-02-2020 A. Babu Prasanth V/S The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, TNPSC Toad, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 The Kerala Public Service Commission, Represented by The Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram & Another Versus P.K. Leelamani & Others High Court of Kerala
11-02-2020 The Chief Senior Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Thiruvananthapuram Versus Valsala Gopinathan, ‘Sreevalsam', Kottooli Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
10-02-2020 Ambalal V. Patel Versus Central Medical Service Society Vishwa Yuva Kendra & Others Competition Commission of India
10-02-2020 Muthoot Exim Pvt. Ltd., Rep.by its Senior Manager (Business Development), Mumbai V/S State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 The Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin Versus Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-02-2020 Dipak Chandra Dhar, Senior Trackman, Under Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) N.F. Railway, Silchar Versus Union of India, Represented by the General Manager, N.F. Railway, Maligaon & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
05-02-2020 N.V. Usha Versus Njarakkal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. High Court of Kerala
05-02-2020 S. Prasanna Raj V/S The Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (Marketing Division) Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-02-2020 Dr. G.K. Aggarwal, Senior Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon Versus Lalit Sayal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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
03-02-2020 M/s. Bright Marketing Company, Tirupur Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 M/s. Phoenix Rubbers, Palakkad, Represented By Sakkeer Hussain, Managing Partner Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, State GST Department, Palakkad & Others High Court of Kerala
03-02-2020 Sutherland Mortgage Services INC, Cochin, Represented by Achutarama Gupta Nesthala Vizupu, Authorized Signatory, V.K. Gupta Versus The Principal Commissioner, Office of The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Central GST & Central Excise, Kochi Commissionerate & Others High Court of Kerala
30-01-2020 M/s. Alfred Berg & Co. (I) Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Kamalesh K Jain & Another Versus TamilNadu State Rep by Senior Drugs Inspector, Villupuram Range I/c Cuddalore High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-01-2020 M/s. Ramkrishna Forgings Limited registered office at Ramkrishna Chambers, Kolkata and its works at Baliguma, Kolabira, Seraikela Kharswan through its Senior General Manager (Finance), Rahul Kumar Bagaria & Others V/S The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Finance Department, Project Building, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
28-01-2020 Director Directorate of Welfare Disabled & Senior Citizens, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru & Others Versus Yogamurthy & Others High Court of Karnataka
28-01-2020 Century Rayon (A Division of Century Textiles and Industries Limited), Maharashtra Versus The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary, Mumbai & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
23-01-2020 M/s. URC Construction (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Signatory V. Ganesan, Manager Versus M/s. Airport Authority of India, Rep. by its Senior Manager Engg (C) Project Division - IV, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-01-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through its Senior Divisional Manager, Chandigarh Versus Palagiri Kumari & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-01-2020 The Managing Committee, The Vellathooval Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Idukki, Represented by Its President Versus The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies(General), Idukki & Another High Court of Kerala
23-01-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through its Senior Divisional Manager, Chandigarh Versus Palagiri Kumari & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC