M/S Alok Traders v. Commissioner Commercial Taxes And 2 Others

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 2; GST statutory provision - Section 3; GST statutory provision - Section 16; GST statutory provision - Section 27; GST statutory provision - Section 31; GST statutory provision - Section 33; GST statutory provision - Section 39; GST statutory provision - Section 49; GST statutory provision - Section 54; GST statutory provision - Section 54(1); GST statutory provision - Section 55; GST statutory provision - Section 56

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The aforesaid two writ petitions have been filed praying for the following reliefs:- Reliefs as prayed in Writ-Tax No.419 of 2022 Reliefs as prayed in Writ-Tax No.424 of 2022 (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondent no.3 and respondent no.2 to refund the amount of security of Rs.4,70,400/- deposited in the form of Draft under Section 129 (1) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 due to the petitioner along with interest under section 56 in compliance of the appellate order dated 30.06.2018 passed in Appeal No. 10 for the assessment Year 2017-18; (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondent no.3 and respondent no.2 to refund the amount of security of Rs.5,60,000/- deposited in the form of Draft under Section 129 (1) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 due to the…
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

3. The aforesaid two writ petitions have been filed praying for the following reliefs:- Reliefs as prayed in Writ-Tax No.419 of 2022 Reliefs as prayed in Writ-Tax No.424 of 2022 (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondent no.3 and respondent no.2 to refund the amount of security of Rs.4,70,400/- deposited in the form of Draft under Section 129 (1) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 due to the petitioner along with interest under section 56 in compliance of the appellate order dated 30.06.2018 passed in Appeal No. 10 for the assessment Year 2017-18; (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondent no.3 and respondent no.2 to refund the amount of security of Rs.5,60,000/- deposited in the form of Draft under Section 129 (1) of the U.P.

Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 due to the petitioner along with interest under section 56 in compliance of the appellate order dated 29.06.2018 passed in Appeal No. 14 for the assessment Year 2017-18;

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondent No. 3 to provide the temporary ID and password on the official website so as to enable the petitioner to file the ONLINE application required under Rule 89 of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017; (c) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the facts and circumstances of the case; (d) Award the costs of the petition to the petitioner. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondent No.

3 to provide the temporary ID and password on the official website so as to enable the petitioner to file the ONLINE application required under Rule 89 of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017; (c) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the facts and circumstances of the case; (d) Award the costs of the petition to the petitioner. 4. Since facts and issues involved in both the writ petitions are similar and inter-parties, therefore, with the consent of learned counsels for the parties, both the writ petitions are being heard together and facts of Writ-Tax No.419 of 2022 are being noted.

6. Against the aforesaid order dated 30.12.2017 under Section 129(3) of the Act, 2017, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 107 of the Act, 2017 before the appellate authority, which was allowed by order dated 30.06.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a refund application dated 09.07.2018 alongwith a copy of the appellate order (received by the respondent no.3 on 11.07.2018) incorporating therein the operative portion of the appellate order, which is reproduced below:- "सेवा में श्रीमान असिसए कमिम० वाणिज्य कर/राज्य कर / सचल दल/ पंचम इकाई, झॉसी मिवषय: रिरफ ं ड हेतु प्रार्थ(नापत्र वष(: 2017.18, उ०प्र० माल एवं सेवाकर अधि,मिनयम 2017 क े अन्तर्ग(त आदरीय महोदय. मिनवेदन है मिक वाहन संख्या : जी जे 06 ए एक्स / 7576 क े द्वारा परिरवहन मिकये जा रहे माल को श्रीमान जी क े द्वारा रोका, एवं प्रार्थ6 से कर एवं अर्थ(दण्ड क े रूप में रू०: 4700000 जमा कराये। प्रार्थ6 क े द्वारा उक्त आदेश क े मिवरुद्ध माननीय एडीशनल कमिमश्नर / ग्रेड 2/ अपील / मिद्वतीय वाणिज्य कर / राज्य कर झाँसी क े न्यायालय में अपील दाखिBल की जो अपील संख्या : 10/ 2018 वष( 2017.18 उ०प्र० माल एवं सेवाकर अधि,मिनयम 2017 की ,ारा 129/3/ क े अन्तर्ग(त पंजीकृ त हुयी। माननीय न्यायालय क े द्वारा आदेश संख्या 17 मिद० 30.6.2018 क े द्वारा मिनम्न आदेश पारिरत मिकये - " अपील संख्या: 17/18 स्वीकार की जाती है, तर्था सचल दल अधि,कारी क े द्वारा उ०प्र० माल एवं सेवाकर अधि,मिनयम 2017 की ,ारा 129/3/ क े अन्तर्ग(त पारिरत आदेश संख्या : 236 मिदo : 30.12.2017 समाप्त मिकया जाता है, माल को मिHना जमानत अवमुक्त मिकये जाने क े आदेश मिदये जाते है । यमिद अपीलकता( क े द्वारा उक्त मद में कोई ,नराणिश/ Hैंक र्गारंटी जमा की र्गयी हो तो वह अपीलकता( को मिनयमानुसार वामिपसी योग्य है।" प्रार्थ(ना अतः प्रार्थ6 का मिवनम्र मिनवेदन है मिक संर्गत वष( में अधि,क जमा ,नराणिश वामिपस करने की कृ पा करे । भवदीय मिदनांक : 9-7-2018 सव(श्री आलोक ट्रेडस(, मिवलेश्वर रोड मिनयर तालाH, पोस्ट- क ं जर, आनन्द 388335 र्गुजरात जी एस टी नं.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

A.F.R. Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 419 of 2022 Petitioner :- M/S Alok Traders Respondent :- Commissioner Commercial Taxes And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pooja Talwar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. With Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 424 of 2022 Petitioner :- M/S Alok Traders Respondent :- Commissioner Commercial Taxes And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pooja Talwar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J. 1. Heard Ms. Pooja Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Personal affidavit of respondent no.1 dated 25.04.2022 has been filed today, which is taken on record.

मिदया र्गया है। सिजसकी एक प्रधित आपको सूचनार्थ( उपलब्, कराई जा रही है। उक्त दाखिBल प्रार्थ(ना पत्र क े क्रम में जाँच पर मिवभार्गीय सव(र पर सम्Hंधि,त लम्बिम्Hत आर एफ डी - 01 का ए आर एन नहीं पाया र्गया है। सिजसकी अनुपम्बिस्र्थधित में उक्त जमा ,नराणिश वामिपस नहीं ली जा सकती है।" पत्र संख्या- 102 मिदनांक 12-02-2021 "आपको मिनदXणिशत मिकया जाता है मिक क े न्द्रीय/राज्यकर अधि,मिनयम-2017 क े अन्त(र्गत फाम( जी एस टी - आर एफ डी 01 इलैक्ट्रामिनक्ली मिवभार्गीय पोट(ल पर दाखिBल करते हुये उक्त का ए आर एन नम्Hर उपलब्, कराये।" 8. The petitioner again submitted an application dated 01.06.2021 before the respondent no.3. In paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the application dated 01.06.2021, the petitioner has stated as under :- “4/ यह मिक उक्त सम्यव्यवहार उत्तर प्रदेश प्रान्त क े Hाहर से उत्तर प्रदेश प्रान्त क े भीतर से सम्Hंधि,त है । सिजस पर आई जी एस टी क े प्राव,ान लार्गू होते हैं। जHमिक श्रीमान जी क े द्वारा समस्त ,नराणिश सी जी एस टी एंव एस जी एस टी क े मद में जमा की है । 5/ यह मिक श्रीमान जी क े द्वारा मिदनांक 12-02-2020 क े पूव( प्रार्थ6 को कोई टैम्परेरी आईडी से उक्त ,नराणिश जमा होने की जानकारी नहीं दी है और न ही कोई पासवड( / मोHाईल नम्Hर उपलब्, कराया है। सिजसमें मिक रिरफण्ड क े प्रार्थ(ना पत्र का ए आर एन नम्Hर आ सक े । 6/ यह मिक प्रार्थ6 जी एस टी अधि,मिनयम क े अन्त(र्गत पंजीकृ त होने क े Hाद भी उक्त ,नराणिश टैम्परेरी आई डी में क्यो जमा की र्गयी आज तक स्पष्ट नहीं मिकया र्गया है । 7/ यह मिक प्रार्थ6 को उक्त समस्त ,नराणिश मय व्याज क े वामिपस करने की कृ पा करे। तर्था प्रार्थ6 को यह मार्ग(दश(न देने की कृ पा करे मिक श्रीमान जी क े द्वारा जो टैम्परेरी आई डी Hनाकर प्रार्थ6 क े द्वारा मिदये र्गये ड्राफ्ट को जमा मिकया है उसका रिरफण्ड मिकस प्रकार से होर्गा ।" 9.

10. The petitioner again submitted an applications dated 27.07.2021 and 14.02.2022 before the respondent no.3 and the Joint Commissioner IT Division, Commercial Tax/State Tax, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow as eighth reminder in which the petitioner again mentioned that the respondent no.3 has deposited the draft submitted by him by making at his own a temporary ID and, therefore, it may be guided as to how the amount would be refunded to the petitioner pursuant to the appellate order. Since nothing was done by the respondents, therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petitions. 11. On 28.03.2022, this Court passed the following order:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

12. It is only after this Court passed the order, the refund was sanctioned to the petitioner on 31.03.2022 and it was paid on 04.04.2022. 13. On 04.04.2022, the following order was passed by this Court:- “1. Heard Ms. Pooja Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. On 28.03.2022, this Court passed the following order:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. A sum of Rs. 04,70,400/- deposited by the petitioner through bank draft pursuant to the order of the respondent no.2 under Section 179 (1) of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 is not being refunded, despite the order has been set aside by the appellate authority vide order dated 30.06.2018.

Revenue / respondent submissions

16. As per reliefs sought in the writ petitions, the petitioner has prayed for refund of the amount and grant of interest . Under the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner has now pressed for the relief for grant of interest and, therefore, this Court heard learned counsels for the parties and passed the order dated 21.04.2022, as under :- “1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

24PVVPM 3807-1ZW सलंग्न: माननीय एडीशनल कमिमश्नर / ग्रेड 2 / अपील / वाणिज्य कर झॉसी क े द्वारा पारिरत आदेश की कॉपी" 7. Since the respondents have neither refunded the amount nor made any communication, therefore, the petitioner moved applications/reminders dated 08.12.2020, 18.01.2021 and 25.01.2021. Thereafter, the respondents sent letter no.92, dated 27.01.2021 and letter no.102, dated 12.02.2021 to the petitioner informing as under :- "पत्र संख्या - 92 मिदनांक 27-01-2021 "मूल पत्रावली की जाँच पर यह प्रकाश में आया मिक रू470400 को माच( 2018 को आलोक ,नीघर मिमश्रा क े नाम पर मिदये र्गये TMP - ID पर जमा करा

2. High handedness, abuse of power and harassment of dealers by the respondents are evident on record and also reflected from the orders passed by this Court in the leading petition, being Writ-Tax No.424 of 2022 as well as the orders dated 28.03.2022 and 04.04.2022 passed in the connected Writ-Tax No.419 of 2022. 3. From the orders dated 28.03.2022, it is evident that despite the petitioner succeeded in appeal, the respondents, on one pretext or the other, and also on account of dereliction in their duty, have not given effect to the appellate order to grant refund to the petitioner of the amount deposited by him. Despite our order dated 18.04.2022, in the two personal affidavits filed today, there is not even a whisper about payment of interest on illegally withheld amount deposited by the petitioner. 4. Learned Standing Counsel submits that since GST is a new regime, therefore, some direction by the Court for grant of interest under the facts and circumstances of the case, is needed. 5. Oral request made by the respondents through the learned Standing Counsel, as recorded above, be brought on record by means of personal affidavit of the respondent no.1 for consideration by this Court. The personal affidavit may be filed on or before the next date fixed.

deposit under the aforesaid Act instead of IGST Act and further committed a manifest error whether deliberately or otherwise, to deposit the aforesaid amount by creating a temporary ID at its own, without informing any relevant fact or password etc. to the petitioner. Therefore, it was wholly impossible for the petitioner to apply online for refund under Section 54(1) of the Act read with Rule 89 of the Rules. It is well settled that law does not compell a man to do what he cannot possibly perform. Under the circumstances, the petitioner admittedly moved a refund application dated 09.07.2018 in physical form for refund of the aforesaid amount pursuant to appellate order dated 30.06.2018 and also enclosed a copy of the appellate order along with the refund application.

Since then, the petitioner who is based in the State of Gujrat has been running from pillar to post to get the refund as is evident from the facts briefly noted in paragraph-6 to 10 of this judgment. The respondents themselves have forgotten the password of the temporary ID and, therefore, could not provide it to the petitioner as is evident from their own letter dated 16.07.2021 referred in the order dated 28.03.2022 passed by this court (quoted in paragraph-11 above). The fact that the petitioner was compelled to apply for refund physically vide application dated 09.07.2018, also stands admitted by the respondent No.1 in paragraph-16 of her personal affidavit dated 25.04.2022 quoted in paragraph 17 above, that due to technical glitches, the temporary I.D. of the petitioner was not available at the end of proper officer's login as it was at development stage of GST Portal and hence it was not possible to provide the password to the petitioner from the proper officer's end.

Shakti LPG Lt. , 2008 (223) ELT 129 (SC) (para-9). Therefore, applying the aforesaid settled principles, the respondents cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong so as to deny the payment of interest to the petitioner on delayed refund.

Operative decision and relief

A sum of Rs. 04,70,400/- deposited by the petitioner through bank draft pursuant to the order of the respondent no.2 under Section 179 (1) of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 is not being refunded, despite the order has been set aside by the appellate authority vide order dated 30.06.2018. The petitioner moved physical application before the respondent no.3 requesting to provide the Treasury Challan through which bank draft was deposited. It is only thereafter, the respondent no.3 has intimated to the petitioner that by letter dated 27.01.2021 the aforesaid bank draft was deposited in the name of Alok Dharnidhar Mishra on Temporary-ID. Again petitioner wrote several letters to the respondents to provide password so that the petitioner may generate A.R.N. for R.F.D.-01.

24 BPVVPM 3807-1ZW प्रधितखिलमिप - माननीय कमिम० वाणिज्यकर / राज्यकर उत्तर प्रदेश को इस ,न्यवाद क े सार्थ मिक उनक े संज्ञान में मेरा तथ्य आते ही उन्होंने मेरी समस्या का तीव्र र्गधित से समा,ान कराया । इसक े खिलये में उनका सदैव अभारी रहूँर्गा।" सव(श्री आलोक ट्रैडस(" 5. Perusal of the aforequoted letter dated 31.03.2022 said to have been written by the petitioner to the Additional Commissioner, Grade-1, Commercial Tax, Jhansi, who is not even the respondent in the present petition, prima facie, shows that the said letter appears to have been procured to get the writ petition dismissed as withdrawn so that adjudication on merits may not take place and the question as posed

this judgment and paragraph-16 of the personal affidavit of the respondent No.1 dated 25.04.2022 quoted in paragraph 17 of this judgment. The appellate authority, by order dated 30.06.2018, not only allowed the appeal of the petitioner and set aside the order dated 30.12.2017 passed by the respondent No.3, but also directed for refund of the amount/ bank guarantee deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner moved the application dated 09.07.2018 for refund before the respondent No.3 along with a copy of the order of the appellate authority. Subsequently, it was followed by several applications written by him to various authorities/ respondents. Thus, it was wholly impossible for the petitioner to submit online Form RFD-01A for refund inasmuch as the petitioner was not having the password of the temporary I.D. mischievously created by the respondent No.3 at its own.

28. For all the reasons afore-stated, both the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to pay interest to the petitioner within a month from today, for the period from 09.09.2018 to 31.03.2022, at the rate notified under Section 56 of the Act. Date :27.04.2022 SK/NLY

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with M/S Alok Traders v. Commissioner Commercial Taxes And 2 Others concerns issue and context: the aforesaid two writ petitions have been filed praying for the following reliefs:- reliefs as prayed in writ-tax no.419 of 2022 reliefs as prayed in writ-tax no.424 of 2022 (a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 and respondent no.2 to refund the amount of security of rs.4,70,400/- deposited in the form of draft under section 129 (1) of the u.p. goods and service tax act, 2017 due to the petitioner along with interest under section 56 in compliance of the appellate order dated 30.06.2018 passed in appeal no. 10 for the assessment year 2017-18; (a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 and respondent no.2 to refund the amount of security of rs.5,60,000/- deposited in the form of draft under section 129 (1) of the u.p. goods and service tax act, 2017 due to the… The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in WRIT TAX No. - 419 of 2022.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Disposed” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: The aforesaid two writ petitions have been filed praying for the following reliefs:- Reliefs as prayed in Writ-Tax No.419 of 2022 Reliefs as prayed in Writ-Tax No.424 of 2022 (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondent no.3 and respondent no.2 to refund the amount of security of Rs.4,70,400/- deposited in the form of Draft under Section 129 (1) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 due to the petitioner along with interest under section 56 in compliance of the appellate order dated 30.06.2018 passed in Appeal No. 10 for the assessment Year 2017-18; (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondent no.3 and respondent no.2 to refund the amount of security of Rs.5,60,000/- deposited in the form of Draft under Section 129 (1) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 due to the… Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 2; GST statutory provision - Section 3; GST statutory provision - Section 16; GST statutory provision - Section 27; GST statutory provision - Section 31; GST statutory provision - Section 33; GST statutory provision - Section 39; GST statutory provision - Section 49; GST statutory provision - Section 54; GST statutory provision - Section 54(1); GST statutory provision - Section 55; GST statutory provision - Section 56—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 2; GST statutory provision - Section 3; GST statutory provision - Section 16; GST statutory provision - Section 27; GST statutory provision - Section 31; GST statutory provision - Section 33; GST statutory provision - Section 39; GST statutory provision - Section 49; GST statutory provision - Section 54; GST statutory provision - Section 54(1); GST statutory provision - Section 55; GST statutory provision - Section 56 and the decision date 2022-04-27; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is M/S Alok Traders v. Commissioner Commercial Taxes And 2 Others, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. - 419 of 2022, and the decision is dated 2022-04-27. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.; Jayant Banerji,J.. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 2; GST statutory provision - Section 3; GST statutory provision - Section 16; GST statutory provision - Section 27; GST statutory provision - Section 31; GST statutory provision - Section 33; GST statutory provision - Section 39; GST statutory provision - Section 49; GST statutory provision - Section 54; GST statutory provision - Section 54(1); GST statutory provision - Section 55; GST statutory provision - Section 56. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Disposed. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 2 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 3 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 16 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 27 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 31 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 33 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 39 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 49 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 54 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 54(1) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 55 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 56 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• M/s SA Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Disposed
• STANLEE (INDIA) ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. v. THE COMMISSIONER OF CGST, DELHI NORTH — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• GAMELOFT SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, RANGE 152 & ANR. — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/s Soraza Recycling Private Limited v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Disposed

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 692 judgments
• Explore Refunds

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_EXACT_SANITIZED_MIRROR · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY