# M/s Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd & Anr v. State Of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 302
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-25
- **Case number:** Writ Tax No. 4542 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Praveen Kumar Giri
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-dcm-shriram-industries-ltd-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53915
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the respondent
authorities were justified in not complying with
the
assessment
order
dated
01.10.2022,
whereby refund of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- was
directed for FY 2017-18, subject to the rule of
unjust enrichment, and despite the law having
already been settled in Jain Distillery Private
Limited vs. State of U.P., 2021 (10) ADJ 69.

Headnotes
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Refund pursuant to assessment order - No
stay by Supreme Court - Taxation - Article
265 - Levy without authority of law
impermissible - U.P. Value Added Tax Act,
2008 - S. 43 - Refund procedure - Buyer
entitled where tax burden passed on -
Interest on refund - Deferred pending
Supreme Court decision - Supreme Court
proceedings - No stay - High Court
judgment binding across U.P.
Held: Supreme Court did not grant any stay on
the judgment in Jain Distillery -Unless a superior
Court passes an order of stay, the order of the
court below remains binding on all the parties to
the lis - State has no authority of law to retain
the amount; refund mandatory, subject to S. 43
of U.P. VAT Act - Refund to be made to
petitioner No. 2 (buyer) upon an indemnity
bond, within eight weeks - Interest claim
deferred until the decision of the Supreme Court
- Writ petition disposed of - impugned order
dated 19.07.2025 rejecting refund is quashed
and set aside. (paras 4,5,6,7,8,9,10) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Jain Distillery Private Limited vs. State of U.P.
and Ors., 2021 (10) ADJ 69

List of Acts
Constitution of India; Uttar Pradesh Value
Added Tax Act, 2008; UPGST Act, 2017

List of Keywords
Inaction; assessment order; refund; unjust
enrichment; legislative competence; ultra vires;
authority of law; indemnity bond; principal
amount; interest kept pending; quashed and set
aside.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:
Writ Tax No. 4542 of 2025, arising out of
assessment order dated 01.10.2022 (FY 201718)
and
refund
rejection
order
dated
19.07.2025.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Nishant Mishra
Vedika Nath
Advs. for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

## Text

302 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
instructions of the concerned authorities.
The aforesaid arrangement shall continue
till passing of appropriate orders by the
competent Court on the said application
seeking visitation rights.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 302
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

Writ Tax No. 4542 of 2025

M/s Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd & Anr.
 ...Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Nishant Mishra, Vedika Nath

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the respondent
authorities were justified in not complying with
the
assessment
order
dated
01.10.2022,
whereby refund of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- was
directed for FY 2017-18, subject to the rule of
unjust enrichment, and despite the law having
already been settled in Jain Distillery Private
Limited vs. State of U.P., 2021 (10) ADJ 69.

Headnotes
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Refund pursuant to assessment order - No
stay by Supreme Court - Taxation - Article
265 - Levy without authority of law
impermissible - U.P. Value Added Tax Act,
2008 - S. 43 - Refund procedure - Buyer
entitled where tax burden passed on -
Interest on refund - Deferred pending
Supreme Court decision - Supreme Court
proceedings - No stay - High Court
judgment binding across U.P.
Held: Supreme Court did not grant any stay on
the judgment in Jain Distillery -Unless a superior
Court passes an order of stay, the order of the
court below remains binding on all the parties to
the lis - State has no authority of law to retain
the amount; refund mandatory, subject to S. 43
of U.P. VAT Act - Refund to be made to
petitioner No. 2 (buyer) upon an indemnity
bond, within eight weeks - Interest claim
deferred until the decision of the Supreme Court
- Writ petition disposed of - impugned order
dated 19.07.2025 rejecting refund is quashed
and set aside. (paras 4,5,6,7,8,9,10) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Jain Distillery Private Limited vs. State of U.P.
and Ors., 2021 (10) ADJ 69

List of Acts
Constitution of India; Uttar Pradesh Value
Added Tax Act, 2008; UPGST Act, 2017

List of Keywords
Inaction; assessment order; refund; unjust
enrichment; legislative competence; ultra vires;
authority of law; indemnity bond; principal
amount; interest kept pending; quashed and set
aside.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:
Writ Tax No. 4542 of 2025, arising out of
assessment order dated 01.10.2022 (FY 201718)
and
refund
rejection
order
dated
19.07.2025.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Nishant Mishra
Vedika Nath
Advs. for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)
&
(Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Punit Agarwal, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and Mr. Ankur Agarwal, learned
Standing
Counsel
for
the
State.
9 All. M/s Dcm Shriram Industries Ltd & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
303

2. This is an application filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by
the inaction on the part of the respondent
authorities
in
complying
with
the
assessment order dated 01.10.2022 for the
Financial Year 2017?18. By the said order,
a sum of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- has been
directed to be refunded, subject to the rule
of unjust enrichment. It is to be noted that
the issue with regard to the taxability of the
amount has already been settled by a
Division Bench of this High Court in Jain
Distillery Private Limited vs. State of U.P.
and Ors., 2021 (10) ADJ 69. The relevant
paragraphs 73 and 74 are delineated below:

"73. Consequently, all the writ
petitions deserve to be allowed. It is
declared, the State lost its legislative
competence to enact laws, to impose tax on
sales of ENA, upon the enactment of the
101st
Constitution
Amendment.
Consequently,
and
upon
considering
Section 174(1) (i) of UPGST. Act, 2017,
the
impugned
Notification
dated
17.12.2019, insofar as it seeks to impose
UPVAT on ENA, Rectified Spirit and SDS,
is ultra vires, both on account of lack of (i)
legislative competence and (ii) valid
delegation.
It
is
therefore
quashed.
Consequentially,
all
assessment
Orders/Notices dated 30.6.2021, 21.6.2021,
8.6.2021, 15.6.2021, 11.6.2021, 7.7.2021,
the (administrative) Circulars/letters dated
10.6.2021 and 11.6.2021, impugned in
these writ petitions, holding otherwise are
also quashed.

74. It is further directed, subject
to applicability of the rule against unjust
enrichment, any amount that may have
been deposited by the petitioners (except
petitioners claiming under this order, in
Writ Tax 355 of 2020), by way of UPVAT
on ENA on or after 1.7.2017, may be
refunded to them, within a period of one
month from today."

3. In light of the above judgment of
the High Court, the assessment order was
passed by the authority concerned. It is to
be noted that a Special Leave Petition has
been
filed
on
behalf
of
the
State
Government, wherein an order was passed
by the hon'ble Supreme Court which is
delineated below:

"1 Issue notice.

2 Mr Kumar Dushyant Singh,
learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of
the first respondent.

3 Counter affidavit be filed
within a period of four weeks from the date
of service.

4 Tag with SLP(C) No 7735 of
2022."

4. It is agreed by the parties appearing
on both sides that the Supreme Court did
not grant any stay on the order passed by
the High Court, that is being assailed
before the Supreme Court.

5. It is a trite law that unless a superior
Court passes an order of stay, the order of
the court below remains binding on all
the parties to the lis. Furthermore, any
judgment
of
the
High
Court
of
Allahabad is applicable to the entire
State of Uttar Pradesh. Article 265 of the
Constitution of India very categorically
states that no tax can be levied without
the authority of law. This principle has
been reiterated in the judgment of the
High Court in the Jain Distillery Private
Limited (supra).
304 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. In light of the same, it is clear that
the amount that has been held by the State
Authorities is without the authority of law
and is required to be refunded, subject to
the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Value
Added Tax Act, 2008, specially Section 43,
which provides for the procedure for
disbursement of amount wrongly realized
by the dealers as tax. In the present case,
both the buyer and the seller of the goods
are before the Court. The liability of the tax
in the present case has been passed on to
the buyer of the goods, as per the finding in
the impugned order.

7. In light of the same, we direct the
authority concerned to refund the money to
the buyer, i.e., petitioner No.2, upon an
indemnity
bond
being
furnished
by
petitioner No.2 in accordance with law to
the satisfaction of the authorities, within a
period of eight weeks from the date.

8. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner has also sought
interest on the amount lying with the
authorities to be paid. However, we are of
the view that, at the present moment, only
the principal amount should be returned to
the petitioners and the interest be kept
pending with the authorities and only be
returned after the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.

9. With the above directions, this writ
petition is disposed of.

10.
The
impugned
order
dated
19.07.2025, rejecting the refund, is quashed
and set aside.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 304
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 3505 of 2024

Pradeep Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shariq Shamim, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Prem Narayan Rai, Santosh Kumar
Mishra

Issue for Consideration
1. Permissibility of considering the entire service
record, and effect of non-considering the
immediate previous service, while passing the
order of compulsory retirement.
2. Scope of judicial review in the matter of
compulsory retirement.

Headnotes
A. Service law - Compulsory Retirement -
Immediate previous service record
-
Earlier, the Reviewing Officer promoted
the petitioner relying upon it - Instead of
considering this fact, the petitioner was
compulsorily retired considering the entire
service record - Validity challenged -
Various
disciplinary
proceeding
with
multiple
punishment
orders
were
conducted
against
the
petitioner
-
Relevance - Effect of Circular dated
09.07.2021 felt into consideration:
Held : In order to ascertain whether petitioner
was fit to retain in service or was a case for
compulsory retirement, his entire service record
could be looked into, therefore, there is no
illegality if entire record of petitioner was
looked, therefore, a fact that petitioner was
suffered with more than about 28 punishments
within a period of 7 years would be a relevant
fact to decide where petitioner was fit to
continue or not in service - All clauses of
Circular dated 09.07.2021 have to be read
jointly - Later part of said Clause puts a caveat