Philips Carbon Black Limited vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 11664 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
   THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1945
                       WP(C) NO. 19058 OF 2018
PETITIONER:

          PHILIPS CARBON BLACK LIMITED
          COCHIN UNIT, KARIMUGAL, BRAHMAPURAM P.O.,
          KOCHI-682303, REPRESENTED BY ITS SR. MANAGER-HR &
          ADMIN- MR.NANDAGOPAL G.
          BY ADVS.
          SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
          SRI.P.GOPINATH
          SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
          SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
          SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
          SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM


RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
          SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
    2     STATE TAX OFFICER
          (INTELLIGENCE) SQUAD NO.VI, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES
          TAX DEPARTMENT, NIRMAL ARCADE, ERANHIPLAM, KOZHIKODE-
          673006.
    3     ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER
          SQUAD NO.VI, KOZHIKODE, STATE GST DEPARTMENT, KERALA-
          673006.
          ADV.RESHMITHA RAMACHANDRAN -GP
     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.19058 of 2018
                                      2


                                                               "C.R"
                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner, a dealer under the provisions of the

Central Goods and Services Tax Act and Kerala Goods

and Services Tax Act, 2017, has filed the present writ

petition challenging the proceedings initiated under

Section 149 of the CGST Act, 2017 on the ground that

the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction and

without the authority of law.

2. The petitioner has challenged Ext.P8

communication whereby the petitioner has been

intimated by the 2nd respondent in response to the

letter of the petitioner dated nil that since the

destination of the transport is Kannur in Kerala,

therefore, the supply being a taxable supply, SGST

component of the GST is creditable to Kerala State. It

is also stated in the said communication that if supply

is not a taxable supply, for job work as claimed by the

petitioner, the supplier should issue the supply

documents (Delivery challan), the details of which have

to be reflected in the accounts records of the WP(C) No.19058 of 2018

consignee. Without this supply document, the nature of

supply, the accountability of the transaction and also

the further movement of goods at the hands of the

consignee cannot be monitored by the department. In

the absence of an online declaration like KER -1, E way

bill etc. the monitoring of the further movement of the

goods becomes more difficult.

3. It is stated that the breach of the rule has

taken place inasmuch as the supply documents that

caused the movement of the goods to the destination

was not carried by the conveyance, and this

contravention of the provisions of the Act requires the

inspecting officer to issue notice under Section 129(3)

of the GST Act for which the notice has already been

issued and the goods would be released as per the law.

4. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture

and sale of Carbon Black. They transported one

consignment of Carbon Black based on Ext.P5

purchase order of MRF Limited, Arakonam, in the State

of Tamil Nadu hereinafter referred to as WP(C) No.19058 of 2018

buyer/principal. It is stated that the buyer had

instructed the petitioner to deliver the goods to its job

worker M/s.Carbomix Polymers(India) Pvt.Limited,

Kannur, in the State of Kerala. The said consignment

was accompanied by Ext.P1 invoice. The invoice would

mentioned the name of the buyer in the consumer

name column and details of job worker were

mentioned in the consignee name column.

5. The goods were intercepted by the 3rd

respondent on 27.02.2018 in the morning at 08.30A.M

when the transport reached Kozhikode, on the way to

the place of job worker at Kannur, and Ext.P3 detention

order was issued. Simultaneously, Ext.P4 notice under

Section 129(3) of the CGST/KGST was issued. Ext.P4

notice mentions the reason that the place of delivery of

goods being at Kannur in the State of Kerala, the CGST

and SGST should have been charged in the invoice but

Ext.P1 invoice was issued charging only IGST. This was

treated as the contravention of the provisions of the

Act, and Section 129 was invoked against the petitioner WP(C) No.19058 of 2018

by the 3rd respondent. The reason for intercepting the

goods as mentioned in Ext.P4 notice would read as

under:-

"The vehicle with goods intercepted at Vengalam in Calicut while plying towards Kannur side. On verification of the accompanied documents following defects are found. The goods under transport is Carbon Black which is consigned from M/s.Philips Carbon Black Ltd., Cochin to MRF Limited Arakonam, Tamil Nadu, which is shown as place of supply and place of delivery is shown as M/s.Carbomix Polymers India Limited, Kannur in Kerala. In the accompanied invoice, the IGST is also collected as an inter-state transport and the SGST portion of which is credited to Tamil Nadu State. As the place of delivery of the goods is Kerala, the SGST to be credited to Kerala State. No such documents ensuring such flow of tax credit to Kerala State or any other document to prove the non-requirement of tax flow to Kerala State are accompanied."

6. The petitioner filed objection to the said

notice (Ext.P4) by Ext.P7 reply, stating that goods were

to be delivered to the job worker at Kannur. However,

the supply was to MRF Limited, Arakonam in Tamil

Nadu. The 2nd respondent issued Ext.P8 proceedings,

and the stand taken was that there was violation of the WP(C) No.19058 of 2018

provisions of the Act at the hands of the petitioner

transporting of goods covered by Ext.P1 invoice. The

goods were released vide Ext.P11 only on the petitioner

making payment under protest. Learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that the stand taken by the

respondents in Exts.P3 and P4 notices, and Ext.P8

proceedings is unsustainable in law, and the entire

proceedings initiated under Section 129 are wholly

without jurisdiction.

7. It is submitted that Section 10(1)(b) of the

IGST Act, 2017 provide that when goods are sent to a

job worker under the instructions of the

buyer/principal, the delivery at the business premises

of the job worker is deemed to be receipt of goods by

the principal and the place of supply of such goods

shall be the place of business of the buyer/principal. He

therefore submits that under Section 10(1)(b) of the

IGST Act, in the present case, the place of supply

would be the misplace of business place of MRF

Limited which is in the State of Tamil Nadu. Learned WP(C) No.19058 of 2018

counsel for the petitioner further submitted that under

Section 7 of the IGST Act, a supply would be treated as

an inter-state supply, if the location of the supplier and

the place of the supply are in to different States. The

place of delivery is immaterial to determine whether

particular supply is inter-state supply inasmuch as

what is relevant is the place of supply and not the place

of delivery. The respondents have considered the place

of delivery as place of supply, and have proceeded

against the petitioner which is evident from notices

issued as well as conclusion in Ext.P8 communication,

which are against the express provisions of IGST Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for

determining whether supply is an inter-state supply or

not, it would depend upon the place of supply and not

the place of delivery. The whole proceedings are based

on erroneous assumption of jurisdiction by the

respondents.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also

drawn attention of this Court to the provisions of WP(C) No.19058 of 2018

Section 143 of the CGST Act. The procedure to be

adopted in case of supply of goods between a job

worker and principal is set out under Section 143 of

the CGST Act, and the said procedure is made

applicable in the case of transactions falling under

IGST Act by Section 20(xxii) of the IGST Act. In order

to alleviate any confusion prevailed in the trade as

regards procedure to be followed in sending goods for

job work, the Central Board of Excise and Customs in

exercise of the powers conferred under Section 168 of

the CGST Act has issued Ext.P12 circular. In

paragraph 8.4(iv) of Ext.P12 circular, it is clarified that

goods can be sent by the supplier directly to the

premises of the job worker under the instruction of the

buyer/principal. Such movement of goods directly to

the job worker can be done under cover of a copy of

the invoice issued by the supplier to the

buyer/principal. The only condition prescribed is that

the job worker's name and address should be

mentioned in the invoice as the consignee. WP(C) No.19058 of 2018

9. The challan required to be issued by the

buyer/principal to the job worker under Rule 45 of the

of the CGST Rules can be directly sent by the

buyer/principal to the job worker, and such challan

need not accompany the consignment, the same may

be sent directly to the job worker by the

buyer/principal. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that in Ext.P1 invoice issued by the petitioner,

buyer/principal is described as the customer and the

job worker as the consignee, the same is in strict

compliance with the job work procedure contemplated

under Section 143 of the CGST Act, read with Ext.P12

circular. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the reasons recorded in paragraph 8 of Ext.P8 that

the non-accompaniment of the documents for supply of

goods by the buyer/principal to the job worker along

with the transport is a violation of Section 31(1) is

against the statutory prescription and circular Ext.p12.

10. The delivery of goods would be deemed to

the business place of the buyer/principal as per Section WP(C) No.19058 of 2018

10(1)(b) of the IGST Act only on delivery to the job

worker. The goods were detained by the respondents

before it reached the premises of the job worker.

Unless the goods are reached to the job worker, same

can never be with the buyer/principal. Therefore, it was

the statutory duty of the petitioner to respond to the

notices issued, and the proceedings initiated by the

respondents inasmuch as the goods were intercepted

before they reached to the job worker. Learned counsel

for the petitioner also submits that even if it is held to

be an intra-state transaction by the proper officer,

Section 77(2) of the CGST Act provides for a transfer of

the amounts to appropriate account, by the proper

officer and the assessee should not be required to pay

interest on such delayed adjustment of IGST to

CGST/SGST. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that an E-way bill system for inter-state movement was

rolled out only from 1st day of April,2018, whereas the

transportation in question was on 27.02.2018, and

therefore, the petitioner was not required to generate WP(C) No.19058 of 2018

an E-way bill as mentioned in Ext.P8

communication/order.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also

submits that as per Rule 138(1) of the KGST Rules,

2017, generation of KER-1 arises only when goods are

transported into or outside the state under a delivery

challan as prescribed under Rule 55 of the KGST

Rules,where no invoice is raised. In the present case

though the place of supply is in the state of Tamil

Nadu, the transportation of goods is from Ernakulam

to Kannur which is within the state of Kerala. Rule 138

is applicable on physical movement and delivery of

goods and not on the place of supply and Rule 138

would not get attracted in the present case.

12. Ms.Reshmitha Ramachandran, learned

Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner has

approached this Court against Ext.P8 communication

issued by the 2nd respondent, which is nothing but show

cause notice by the competent officer acting under a

taxing statute. It is well settled that the powers of High WP(C) No.19058 of 2018

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

should not be invoked against the show cause notice as

has been held in the case of the State of Punjab

v.Shiv Enterprises by the Supreme Court in its

judgment dated 16.01.2023 rendered in C.A No.359 of

2023. Learned Government Pleader further submits

that the subject movement of goods was not declared

through the mandatory online declaration KER-1 ( the

predecessor of E-way bill) before commencement of the

transport. The petitioner was fully aware of the

requirement of generation of KER-1, and the

consignment did not have the mandatory declaration

KER -1 in violation of the provisions of the Act and

Rules. It is further submitted that in Ext.P10 reply

submitted by the petitioner to Ext.P8 communication,

the petitioner himself acknowledged the requirement

of generation of e-way bill in form KER-1. The subject

transport commenced on 26.02.2018 while the KER-1

declaration was in force till it was replaced by E-way

bill. The allegation against the petitioner is violation of WP(C) No.19058 of 2018

provisions of Section 129 of the Act and not for evasion

of tax. The penalty under Section 129 would be

applicable even in cases where the goods transported

are exempted goods if such obligations as prescribed

under the statute are violated. The Mandatory form

prescribed as KER-1 is applicable even to transaction

covered by IGST Act, 2017 before introduction of E-

way bill and declaration prescribed under Rule 138 is

mandatory even for transport of goods to the job

worker. The mens rea is not a factor to be proved for

imposition of penalty under Section 129 of the Act. In

support of the said contention learned Government

Pleader has placed reliance on the judgment of this

Court in the case of Assistant State Tax Officer v.

Indus Towers Limited, [2018(3)KLT Online 2053].

13. Two questions required consideration by this

Court in the present writ petition;- 1) Whether the

supply of goods to the job worker of M/s.MRF Limited,

Arakonam, Tamil Nadu at Kannur, Kerala is inter-state

supply or intra-state supply?; and, 2). Whether the WP(C) No.19058 of 2018

proceedings initiated under Section 129 of the CGST

Act/KGST Act against the petitioner are without

jurisdiction.

14. Provisions of Section 10(1)(b) of the IGST

Act, 2017, are relevant for the purposes of determining

whether the supply made by the petitioner is intra-state

supply or inter-state supply. Section 10(1)(b) of the

IGST Act, 2017 reads as under:

"(b) where the goods are delivered by the supplier to a

recipient or any other person on the direction of a third

person, whether acting as an agent or otherwise, before or

during movement of goods, either by way of transfer of

documents of title to the goods or otherwise, it shall be

deemed that the said third person has received the goods

and the place of supply of such goods shall be the principal

place of business of such person."

15. Section 7 of the IGST Act defines inter -state

supply, which reads as under:

"Section -7.Inter-state supply- (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 10, supply of goods, where the location of the supplier and the place of supply are in -

          (a)    two different States,
          (b)    two different Union territories; or
 WP(C) No.19058 of 2018


          (c)     a State and a union territory,

shall be treated as a supply of goods in the course of inter-state trade or commerce.

(2) Supply of goods imported into the territory of India, till they cross the customs frontiers of India, shall be treated to be a supply of goods in the course of inter-state trade or commerce.

(3) Subject to the provisions of Section 12, supply of services, where the location of the supplier and the place of supply are in -

          (a)    two different States;
          (b)    two different Union territories; or
          (c)    a State and a Union territory,

shall be treated as a supply of services in the course of inter- state trade or commerce.

(4) Supply o f services imported into the territory of India shall be treated to be a supply of services in the course of inter- state trade or commerce.

(5) Supply of goods or services or both-

(a) when the supplier is located in India and the place of supply is outside India;

(b) to or by a Special Economic Zone developer or a Special Economic Zone unit; or

(c) in the taxable territory, not being an intra -state supply and not covered elsewhere in this section, shall be treated to be a supply of goods or services or both in the course of inter-state trade or commerce"

16. Similarly Section 8 defines intra-state

supply , which reads as under:

WP(C) No.19058 of 2018

"Section -8. Intra-State supply-(1) Subject to the provisions of section 10, supply of goods where the location of the supplier and the place of supply of goods are in the same State or same Union territory shall be treated as intra-State supply;

(i) Supply of goods to or by a Special Economic Zone developer or a Special Economic Zone unit;

(ii) goods imported into the territory of India till they cross the customs frontiers of India; or

(iii) supplies made to a tourist referred to in section 15.

(2) Subject to the provisions of section 12, supply of services where the location of the supplier and the place of supply of services are in the same State or same Union territory shall be treated as intra-State supply: Provided that the intra-state supply of services shall no include supply of services to or by a Special Economic Zone developer or a Special Economic Zone unit.

Explanation 1. - For the purposes of this Act, where a person has-

(I) an establishment in India and any other establishment outside India.

(ii) an establishment in a State or Union territory and any other establishment outside that State or Union territory; or

(iii) an establishment in a State or Union territory and any other establishment being a business vertical registered within that State or Union territory.

then such establishments shall be treated as establishments of distinct persons.

WP(C) No.19058 of 2018

Explanation.2 - A person carrying on a business through a branch or an agency or a representational office in any territory shall be treated as having an establishment in that territory."

17. Section 7 and 8 lay emphasis on supply of

goods. Where the location of the supplier and the place

of supply are in two different states then, such supply

shall be treated as the supply of goods in the course of

inter-state trade and commerce and in case where the

supplier and the place of the supply of the goods are in

the same State or same Union territory such supply of

goods shall be treated as intra-state supply subject to

certain exemptions as mentioned in Section 8. Supply

has been assigned the same meaning as assigned to in

Section 7 of the CGST Act, 2017 as per Section 21(2)

of the IGST Act,2017. Section 7 of the CGST Act

defines the scope of supply which would mean all forms

of supply and expression "Supply" includes all forms of

supply of goods or services or both such as sale,

transfer, barter, exchange, license, rental, lease or

disposal made or agreed to be made for a consideration

by a person in the course or furtherance of business. WP(C) No.19058 of 2018

18. Section 10 defines place of supply of goods or

services or both. Section 10 is read as under :

10. (1) The place of supply of goods, other than supply

of goods imported into, or exported from India, - (1)

The place of supply of goods, other than supply of goods

imported into, or exported from India, shall be as under -

(a) where the supply involves movement of goods,

whether by the supplier or the recipient or by any other

person, the place of supply of such goods shall be the

location of the goods at the time at which the movement of

goods terminates for delivery to the recipient;

(b) where the goods are delivered by the supplier to a

recipient or any other person on the direction of a third

person, whether acting as an agent or otherwise, before or

during movement of goods, either by way of transfer of

documents of title to the goods or otherwise, it shall be

deemed that the said third person has received the goods

and the place of supply of such goods shall be the principal

place of business of such person;

(c) where the supply does not involve movement of

goods, whether by the supplier or the recipient, the place of

supply shall be the location of such goods at the time of the

delivery to the recipient;

WP(C) No.19058 of 2018

(d) where the goods are assembled or installed at site,

the place of supply shall be the place of such installation or

assembly;

(e) where the goods are supplied on board a

conveyance, including a vessel, an aircraft, a train or a

motor vehicle, the place of supply shall be the location at

which such goods are taken on board.

(2) Where the place of supply of goods cannot be determined,

the place of supply shall be determined in such manner as

may be prescribed.

19. In case of supply which involves movements

of goods, the place of supply of such goods would be

the location of the goods at the time at which the

movement of goods terminates for delivery to the

recipient. Section 10(1)(b) is an exception to to the

Section 10(1)(a). Under Section 10(1)(b) above, the

place of supply of goods in case where the supply is

made on the direction of the third person, it would be

deemed as third person has recived the goods and the

place of supply of such goods shall be the principal

place of business of such third person. Section 20 of

the IGST Act makes it clear that application of WP(C) No.19058 of 2018

provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act

would be applicable to the job work as well subject to

the provisions of the IGST Act and rules made

thereunder.

20. From construction of Section 7,8 and 10, it

would be evident that to determine whether the supply

is inter-state supply or intra-state supply, it would

depend on the place of supply and not delivery of the

goods. In case, where the supply is made on the

direction of a 3rd party, then place of the principal or

the 3rd party shall be the place of supply as per Section

10(1)(b) of the IGST Act. In the present case, the

delivery of goods was destined to M/s.Carbomix

Polymers (India) Pvt.Limited, Kannur, Kerala, on

instructions by MRF Limited to whom the goods were

sold and invoice was issued in the name of MRF

Limited. Considering the aforesaid provisions, I am of

the view that the supply of goods in the present case

was inter-state supply and not intra-state supply and

the same would attract the tax under the IGST Act. WP(C) No.19058 of 2018

21. Section 143 of the CGST Act prescibes

procedure for job work. The said procedure is made

applicable in the case of transaction falling under the

IGST Act as well under the provisions of Section

20(xxii). The Central Board of Excise and Customs

under the powers conferred under Section 168 of the

CGST Act had issued Ext.P12 circular, clarifying that

the goods can be sent by the supplier directly to the

premises of the job worker under the instruction of the

buyer/principal and such movement of goods directed

to the job worker can be done under cover of the copy

of the invoice issued by the supplier to the

buyer/principal. Paragraph 8.4 (iv) of Ext.P12 circular

would read as under:

"(iv). Where the goods are sent directly by the supplier to the job worker: In this case, the goods may move from the place of business of the supplier to the place of business/premises of the job worker with a copy of the invoice issued by the supplier in the name of the buyer (i.e. the principal) wherein the job worker's name and address should also be mentioned as the consignee, in terms of rule 46(o) of the CGST Rules. The buyer (i.e. the principal) shall issue the challan under rule 45 of the CGST Rules and send the same to the job worker directly in terms of para (i) WP(C) No.19058 of 2018

above. In case of import of goods by the principal which are then supplied directly from the custom station of import, the goods may move from the customs station of import to the place of business/premises of the job worker with a copy of the Bill of Entry and the principal shall issue the challan under Rule 45 of the CGST Rules and send the same to the job worker directly."

22. In the present case, Ext.P1 invoice issued by

the petitioner describes the buyer/principal as the

customer and the job worker as the consignee and it is

in compliance of job work procedure contemplated

under Section 143 of the Act read with Ext.P12

circular.

20. In view thereof, the supply being intra-state

supply, the said supply would be governed under the

IGST Act and Rules made thereunder and not under the

CGST/KSGST Act and Rules.

23. The issue regarding non-requirement of

generation of KER-1 as raised by the learned

Government Pleader is also required to be considered.

Rule138(1) prescribes the documents which are to be

carried by the conveyance of goods, which reads as

under:

WP(C) No.19058 of 2018

"138.Documents to be carried with the consignment

of goods.--(1) A person in charge of a conveyance

carrying any consignment of goods of value exceeding

such amount as may be specified, while transporting

goods into or outside the State or where the goods are

transported on a delivery chalan as specified under rule

55, along with the invoices, a declaration as mentioned in

sub-rule (2), which shall be declared in the Kerala Value

Added Tax Information System Portal immediately before

such transportation of goods."

24. In the present case, the place of supply is in

the state of Tamil Nadu but the delivery of the goods is

within the State of Kerala i.e, from Ernakulam to

kannur. The goods of the petitioner were not

intercepted for non-generation of KER-1 and was not

part of Ext.P4 notice. The only allegation was that the

petitioner had charged IGST instead of CGST and

SGST. Even otherwise, this was time when the

transition from the Kerala VAT tax regim to CGST/SGST

tax regim was taking place, and the E-way bill system

was being introduced and therefore, for not generating

the KER-1 declaration, when the goods were WP(C) No.19058 of 2018

accompanied with the other required documents such

as invoices etc., itself would not be sufficent that the

supply was in violation of the provisions of the Act and

Rules.

25. As the respondents did not have the

jurisdiction and they assumed the jurisdiction which

was not vested in them for issuing Ext.P4 notice and

Ext.P8 order, I find the whole proceedings without

jurisdiction and therefore, the argument of learned

Government Pleader that the petitioner has

approached this Court at the stage of issuing show

cause notice and the writ petition should not be

entertained, does not require much consideration.

Thus, the writ petition stands allowed the

impugned proceedings are hereby set aside.

Consequence to follow.

Sd/-

DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE

AP WP(C) No.19058 of 2018

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19058/2018

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY TAX INVOICE NO.3201004999 DATED 26.02.2018.

EXHIBIT P2 THE CONSIGNMENT NOTE NO.KOC 5734 DATED 26.02.2018 ISSUED BY TOTAL LOGISTICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DETENTION VC/VI/29/17-18 DATED 27.02.2018.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.OR VI/29/17-18 DATED 27.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE ORDER DATED 15.05.2017 ISSUED BY MRF LIMITED ON THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JOB WORK AGREEMENT DATED 18.12.2017 EXECUTED BETWEEN MRF LIMITED AND CARBOMIX POLYMERS INDIA PVT.LTD.

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED NIL (WITHOUT ANNEXURES) SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 02.03.2018. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.OR VI/29/17-18 DATED 02.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE DD NOS. 501580, 501581, 501582 AND 501583 DATED 08.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TOWARDS THE AMOUNTS UNDER EXT.P4 NOTICE.

EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.03.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.OR/VI/29/17-18 DATED 10.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.38/12/2018 DATED 26.03.2018.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL