Madras High Court
M/S.Larsen And Toubro Limited vs Commissioner Of Cgst & Central Excise on 17 April, 2025
Author: Mohammed Shaffiq
Bench: Mohammed Shaffiq
W.P. Nos.23194 and 23200 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.P. Nos.23194 and 23200 of 2021
and
W.M.P.No.24499 of 2021
M/s.Larsen and Toubro Limited,
(Represented by its JGM, Corporate Indirect
Taxation, Mr.Raju V Iyer)
TC 1 Building, Ground Floor,
L&T Construction Campus,
Mount Poonamallee Road,
Manapakkam, Chennai 600 089. .. Petitioner(s)
in both W.P.'s
Vs.
Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise,
South Commissionerate,
MHU Complex, 692 Anna Salai,
Nandanam, Chennai 600 035. .. Respondent(s)
in both W.P.'s
PRAYER in W.P.No.23194 of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari,
calling for the records of the respondent leading to the issue of the Show
Cause Notice bearing No.6/2020 (C) Dt. 24.09.2020 and quash the same
as the said notice has been issued on a non-existent entity, as M/s.L&T
Shipbuilding Ltd., has ceased to exist with effect from 18.05.2020
Page 1 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 04:28:53 pm )
W.P. Nos.23194 and 23200 of 2021
consequent to its amalgamation with the petitioner.
PRAYER in W.P.No.23200 of 2021: Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari,
calling for the records of the respondent leading to the passage of the
Order in Original No.17/2021 (C) dated 29.06.2021 and quash the same,
as the same is void, arbitrary, illegal, in violation of the principles of
natural justice and also in contravention of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit
Rules, 2004, Section 26(1) of the SEZ Act, 2005, Section 3 of the Central
Excise Act and also in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 246 and 265 of
the Constitution.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.G.Natarajan
in both W.P.'s
For Respondents(s) : Mr.Sai Srujan Tayi
in both W.P.'s Senior Panel Counsel
COMMON ORDER
The short question that arises for consideration is whether it is
permissible for the respondent authority to issue a show cause notice in
the name of a company which stood amalgamated and proceed to
complete the adjudication, in the name of the amalgamated/non-existent
company.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that L&T
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 04:28:53 pm )
W.P. Nos.23194 and 23200 of 2021
Shipbuilding Limited has merged with L&T Limited. Factum of above
amalgamation was within the knowledge of the respondent authority
even before the show cause notice dated 24.09.2020 came to be passed,
as would be evident from a reading of show cause notice which records,
factum of amalgamation, while extracting the statement of the senior
DGM of the petitioner. The relevant portion is extracted here under:
“SHOW CAUSE NOTICE No. 06/2020 (C)
.....
5. Shri Shantanu Majumder, Senior DGM (Finance and
Accounts) of M/s.L&T Ship building Limited, in his statement
dated 02/09/2020, interalia stated the following:
M/s.L&T Shipbuilding Limited is an SEX unit in the SEZ
notified area. Their operations are monitored by the Customs
authorities under SEZ Act. It was a 100% subsidiary of L&T
Limited, now as on date it has been merged with L&T Limited..”
3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the issue stands covered by this Court in the case of M/s.Pharmazell
(India) Private Limited in W.P.No.22468 of 2021 dated 27.02.2024,
wherein reference was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Maruti Suzuki and Spice Entertainment amongst others. The relevant
portion of the order of this Court is extracted hereunder:
“4. It was submitted that pursuant to the order of
amalgamation any order that is made in the name of Pharmazell
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 04:28:53 pm )
W.P. Nos.23194 and 23200 of 2021
Vizag which is not in existence would be void, reliance was
placed on the judgment of the Hon-ble Supreme Court in case of
Maruti Suzuki and the Delhi High Court in the case of Spice
Entertainment, which I shall refer to in the course of this
judgment.
5. To the contrary, it was submitted by the learned counsel
for the respondent that the petitioner had participated in the
proceedings and thus estopped in raising this procedural /
technical defect of the assessment having been made in the name
of Pharmazell Vizag Pvt. Ltd.
6. I find that the objection now raised by the learned
counsel for the respondent stands rejected by the Division Bench
of the Delhi High Court in the case of Spice Entertainment Ltd.
vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 247 CTR 500 which
has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,
reported in 416 ITR 613, the relevant portion is extracted
hereunder :
2
0. In Spice Entertainment, (supra) a Division
Bench of the Delhi High Court dealt with the
question as to whether an assessment in the name
of a company which has been amalgamated and has
been dissolved is null and void or, whether the
framing of an assessment in the name of such
company is merely a procedural defect which can
be cured. The High Court held that upon a
notice under Section 143 (2) being addressed, the
amalgamated company had brought the fact of the
amalgamation to the notice of the assessing officer. Despite
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 04:28:53 pm )
W.P. Nos.23194 and 23200 of 2021
this, the assessing officer did not substitute the name of the
amalgamated company and proceeded to make an
assessment in the name of a non~existent company which
renders it void. This, in the view of the High Court, was not
merely a procedural defect. Moreover, the participation by
the amalgamated company would have no effect since there
could be no estoppel against law:
“11. After the sanction of the scheme on 11th
April, 2004, the Spice ceases to exit w.e.f. 1st July, 2003.
Even if Spice had filed the returns, it became incumbent
upon the Income tax authorities to substitute the successor
in place of the said -dead person-. When notice under
Section 143 (2) was sent, the appellant/amalgamated
company appeared and brought this fact to the knowledge
of the AO. He, however, did not substitute the name of the
appellant on record. Instead, the Assessing Officer made
the assessment in the name of M/s Spice which was non
existing entity on that day. In such proceedings an
assessment order passed in the name of M/s Spice would
clearly be void. Such a defect cannot be treated as
procedural defect. Mere participation by the appellant
would be of no effect as there is no estoppel against law.
12. Once it is found that assessment is framed in
the name of non~existing entity, it does not remain a
procedural irregularity of the nature which could be cured
by invoking the provisions of Section 2928 of the Act.“
Following the decision in Spice Entertainment,
(supra) the Delhi High Court quashed assessment orders
which were framed in the name of the amalgamating
company in:
(i) Dimension Apparels (supra);
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 04:28:53 pm )
W.P. Nos.23194 and 23200 of 2021
(ii) Micron Steels; and (supra)
(ii) Micra India (supra).
21. .....
24. A batch of Civil Appeals was filed before this
Court against the decisions of the Delhi High Court, the
lead appeal being Spice Enfotainment (supra). On 2
November 2017, a Bench of this Court consisting of Hon-
ble Mr Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Hon-ble Mr
Justice Sanjay Court Rasil dismissed the Civil Appeals and
tagged Special Leave Petitions in terms of the following
order:
“Delay condoned.
Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the parties.
We do not find any reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment(s) passed by the High Court.
In view of this, we find no merit in the appeals and
special leave petitions.
Accordingly, the appeals and special leave
petitions are dismissed.“
25. The doctrine of merger results in the settled legal
position that the judgment of the Delhi High Court stands
affirmed by the above decision in the Civil Appeals.
7. Thereafter while dealing with the contention that a
contrary view has been taken by the Delhi High Court in Sky
Light Hospitality LLT which is affirmed by a 2 Judge bench of the
Apex Court, it was found that it does not in any manner dilute or
water down the law laid down in Spice Entertainment and it was
clarified that the law laid down in Spice Entertainment governs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 04:28:53 pm )
W.P. Nos.23194 and 23200 of 2021
the field as would be evident from the following portions of the
judgment :
2
7. The submission however which has been
urged on behalf of the Revenue is that a contrary position
emerges from the decision of the Delhi High Court in
Skylight Hospitality LLP (supra) which was affirmed on 6
April 2018 by a two judge Bench of this Court consisting of
Hon-ble Mr Justice A K Sikri and Hon-ble Mr Justice Ashok
Bhushan 32 Sky Light Hospitality LLP (supra). In assessing
the merits of the above submission, it is necessary to extract
the order dated 6 April 2018 of this Court:
“In the peculiar facts of this case, we are convinced
that wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical
error which could be corrected under Section 292B of the
Income Tax Act.
The special leave petition is dismissed.
Pending applications stand disposed of.“
Now, it is evident from the above extract that it
was in the peculiar facts of the case that this Court
indicated its agreement that the wrong name given in the
notice was merely a clerical error, capable of being
corrected under Section 29
28. The “peculiar facts“ of Skylight Hospitality
emerge from the decision of the Delhi High Court Sky Light
Hospitality LLP (supray/Skylight Hospitality, an LLP,
(supra) had taken over on 13 May 2016 and acquired the
rights and liabilities of Skylight Hospitality Pvt. Ltd upon
conversion under the Limited Liability Partnership Act
200825, It Instituted writ proceedings for challenging a
notice under Sections 147/148 of the Act 1961 dated 30
March 2017 for AY 2010~2011. The “reasons to believe“
made a reference to a tax evasion report received from the
investigation unit of the income tax department. The facts
were ascertained by the investigation unit. The reasons to
believe referred to the assessment order for AY 2013~2014
and the findings recorded in it. Though the notice under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 04:28:53 pm )
W.P. Nos.23194 and 23200 of 2021
Sections 147/148 was issued in the name of Skylight
Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. (which had ceased to exist upon
conversion into an LLP), there was, as the Delhi High
Court held “substantial and affirmative material and
evidence on record“ to show that the issuance of the notice
in the name of the dissolved company was a mistake. The
tax evasion report adverted to the conversion of the private
limited company into an LLP. Moreover, the reasons to
believe recorded by the assessing officer adverted to the
approval of the Principal Commissioner. The PAN number
of the LLP was also mentioned in some of the documents.
The notice under Sections 147/148 was not in conformity
with the reasons to believe and the approval of the
Principal Commissioner. It was in this background that the
Delhi High Court held that the case fell within the purview
of Section 2928 for the following reasons:
“18...There was no doubt and debate that the
notice was meant for the petitioner and no one else. Legal
error and mistake was made in addressing the notice.
Noticeably, the appellant having received the said notice,
had filed without prejudice reply/letter dated 11.04.2017.
They had objected to the notice being issued in the name of
the Company, which had ceased to exist. However, the
reading of the said letter indicates that they had understood
and were aware, that the notice was for them. It was replied
and dealt with by them. The fact that notice was addressed
to M/s. Skylight Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., a company which had
been dissolved, was an error and technical lapse on the
part of the respondent. No prejudice was caused.“
29. From a reading of the order of this Court
dated 6 April 2018 in the Special Leave Petition filed by
Skylight Hospitality LLP (supra) against the judgment of
the Delhi High Court rejecting its challenge, it is evident
that the peculiar facts of the case weighed with this Court in
coming to this conclusion that there was only a clerical
mistake within the meaning of Section 2928. The decision in
Skylight Hospitality LLP (supra) has been distinguished by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 04:28:53 pm )
W.P. Nos.23194 and 23200 of 2021
the Delhi, Gujarat and Madras High Courts in:
(1) Rajender Kumar Sehgal (supra);
(ii) Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel; and (supro)
(iii) Alamelu Veerappan (supra).
30. There is no conflict between the decisions of
this Court in Spice Enfotainment (supra) and in Skylight
Hospitality LLP (supra)
.....
33. In the present case, despite the fact that the
assessing officer was informed of the amalgamating
company having ceased to exist as a result of the approved
scheme of amalgamation, the jurisdictional notice was
issued only in its name. The basis on which jurisdiction was
invoked was fundamentally at odds with the legal principle
that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the
approved scheme of amalgamation. Participation in the
proceedings by the appellant in the circumstances cannot
operate as an estoppel against law. This position now holds
the field in view of the judgment of a co~ordinate Bench of
two learned judges which dismissed the appeal of the
Revenue in Spice Enfotainment (supra) on 2 November
2017. The decision in Spice Enfotainment has been followed
in the case of the respondent while dismissing the Special
Leave Petition for AY 2011~2012. In doing so, this Court
has relied on the decision in Spice Enfotainment (supra).
34. We find no reason to take a different view.
There is a value which the court must abide by in promoting
the interest of certainty in tax litigation. The view which has
been taken by this Court in relation to the respondent for
AY 2011~12 must, in our view be adopted in respect of the
present appeal which relates to AY 2012~13. Not doing so
will only result in uncertainty and displacement of settled
expectations. There is a significant value which must attach
to observing the requirement of consistency and certainty.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 04:28:53 pm )
W.P. Nos.23194 and 23200 of 2021
Individual affairs are conducted and business decisions are
made in the expectation of consistency, uniformity and
certainty. To detract from those principles is neither
expedient nor desirable.
8. It may also be relevant to note that the Supreme Court
in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs.
Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd., reported in (2022) 443 ITR 194 had
considered the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Maruti Suzuki and it was held as under :
“4
2. ..... whether corporate death of an entity
upon amalgamation per se invalidates an assessment order
ordinarily cannot be determined on a bare application of
section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 (and its equivalent
in the 2013 Act), but would depend on the terms of the
amalgamation and the facts of each case.
43. In view of the foregoing discussion and having
regard to the facts of this case, this court is of the
considered view, that the impugned order of the High Court
cannot be sustained; it is set aside.
”
8.1. Importantly, the decision in Maruti Suzuki which was
relied upon was distinguished in Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd.,
primarily on the premise that in the case of Maruti Suzuki the
assesse therein had duly informed the authorities about the
merger of the company and yet the assessment order was passed
in the name of the amalgamated / non existing company.
Whereas, in the case of Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd., the factum of
amalgamation was not brought to the notice of the assessing
authority and further the assessment order was made in the name
of both the amalgamating company and the resultant company in
the case of Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd. It was thus held the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 04:28:53 pm )
W.P. Nos.23194 and 23200 of 2021
decision in Maruti Suzuki was inapplicable to the facts of the
case. The relevant portion of the order of the Supreme Court in
Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd., is extracted below for better
appreciation of the above position:
7
. The Revenue, represented by the Additional
Solicitor General, Mr. N. Venkataraman, urged that the
names of both the amalgamating and amalgamated
companies were mentioned in the assessment order.
According to him such mistakes, defects or omissions are
curable under section 2928 when the assessment is in
substance and effect, in conformity with or according to the
intent and purpose of the Act.
8. It was contended that the amalgamating or
transferor company was duly represented by the
amalgamated company and no prejudice was caused to any
of the parties by the assessment order. It is further urged by
the Revenue that in Maruti Suzuki, this court rejected the
Revenue-s appeal on the ground that the final assessment
order referred only to the name of the amalgamating
company and there was no mention of the resulting
company, whereas in this case, in both the draft and the
final assessment orders, the names of both the
amalgamating and amalgamated company were mentioned.
9. It was also urged that the facts of the Maruti
Suzuki are distinguishable from the present case, as in that
case the Revenue was duly informed about the merger and
change in name of the company, and yet the Assessing
Officer passed the order in the name of the transferor or
amalgamating *(2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC); [2019] SCC
Online SC 928. company. However, in the present case, the
Assessing Officer or even the Revenue was not informed
about the amalgamation.
.....
33. ..... The respondent has relied upon Spice and
Maruti Suzuki (supra) to contend that the notice issued in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 04:28:53 pm )
W.P. Nos.23194 and 23200 of 2021
the name of the amalgamating company is void and illegal.
The facts of the present case, however, can be distinguished
from the facts in Spice and Maruti Suzuki on the following
bases.
34. Firstly, in both the relied upon cases, the
assessee had duly informed the authorities about the merger
of companies and yet the assessment order was passed in
the name of the amalgamating/non~ existent company.
However, in the present case, for the assessment year
2006~07, there was no intimation by the assessee regarding
amalgamation of the company. The return of income for the
assessment year 2006~07 first filed by the respondent on
June 30, 2006 was in the name of MRPL. MRPL
amalgamated with MIPL on May 11, 2007, with effect from
April 1, 2006. In the present case, the proceedings against
MRPL started in August 27, 2008 when search and seizure
was first conducted on the Mahagun group of companies.
Notices under section 153A and section 143(2) were issued
in the name MRPL and the representative from MRPL
corresponded with the Department in the name of MRPL
On May 28, 2010, the assessee filed to of cores on the
name of MRPL, and in the “business reorganization column
of the form mentioned not applicable amalgamation section.
Though the respondent contends that they had intimated the
authorities by letter dated July 22, 2010, it was for the
assessment year 2007 ~08 and not for the assessment year
2006~07 For the assessment years 2007~08 to 2008~09,
separate proceedings under section 153A were initiated
against MIPL and the proceedings against MRPL for these
two assessment years were quashed by the Additional
Commissioner of Income~tax by order dated November 30,
2010 as the amalgamation was disclosed. In addition, in the
present case the assessment order dated August 11, 2011
mentions the name of both the amalgamating (MRPL) and
amalgamated (MIPL) companies.
35. Secondly, in the cases relied upon, the
amalgamated companies had participated in the
proceedings before the Department and the courts held that
the participation by the amalgamated company will not be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 04:28:53 pm )
W.P. Nos.23194 and 23200 of 2021
regarded as estoppel. However, in the present case, the
participation in proceedings was by MRPL which held out
itself as MRPL.
.....
41. In the light of the facts, what is
overwhelmingly evident is that the amalgamation was
known to the assessee, even at the stage when the search
and seizure operations took place, as well as statements
were recorded by the Revenue of the directors and
managing director of the group. A return was filed,
pursuant to notice, which suppressed the fact of
amalgamation on the contrary, the return was of MRPL.
Though that entity ceased to be in existence, in law, yet,
appeals were filed on its behalf before the Commissioner of
Income~tax, and a cross~appeal was filed before the
Income~tax Appellate Tribunal. Even the affidavit before
this court is on behalf of the director of MRPL.
Furthermore, the assessment order painstakingly attributes
specific amounts surrendered by MRPL, and after
considering the special auditor-s report, brings specific
amounts to tax, in the search assessment order. That order
is no doubt expressed to be of MRPL (as the assessee) but
represented by the transferee, MIPL. All these clearly
indicate that the order adopted a particular method of
expressing the tax liability. The Assessing Officer, on the
other hand, had the option of making a common order, with
MIPL as the assessee, but containing separate parts,
relating to the different transferor companies (Mahagun
Developers Ltd., Mahagun Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Universal
Advertising Pvt. Ltd., ADR Home Décor Pvt. Ltd.). The
mere choice of the Assessing Officer in issuing a separate
order in respect of MRPL, in these circumstances, cannot
nullify it. Right from the time it was issued, and at all stages
of various proceedings, the parties concerned (i.e.,
MIPL) treated it to be in respect of the transferee company
(MIPL) by virtue of the amalgamation order and section
394(2). Furthermore, it would be anybody-s guess, if any
refund were due, as to whether MIPL would then say that it
is not entitled to it, because the refund order would be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 04:28:53 pm )
W.P. Nos.23194 and 23200 of 2021
issued in favour of a non~existing company (MRPL).
Having regard to all these reasons, this court is of the
opinion that in the facts of this case, the conduct of the
assessee, commencing from the date the search took place,
and before all forums, reflects that it consistently held itself
out as the assessee. The approach and order of the
Assessing Officer is, in this court-s opinion in consonance
with the decision in Marshall and Sons (supra), which had
held that*:
“an assessment can always be made and is
supposed to be made on the transferee company taking into
account the income of both the transferor and transferee
company.”
8.2. The above extracts would show as stated supra that
two facts which weighed with the Supreme Court in case of
Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd., was that the factum of amalgamation
was not brought to the notice of the assessing authority and
further the assessment order was made in the name of both the
amalgamating company and the resultant company. It was under
those circumstances it was held by the Supreme Court in
Mahagun Realtors (P)Ltd., that the impugned order of the High
Court holding that the assessments in that case was not a nullity.
However, as found supra in the present case the petitioner had on
atleast 5 occasions intimated the assessing authority as to the
factum of amalgamation and requested that the assessment be
made in the name of the resultant / amalgamated company and
thus the impugned order in the name of the amalgamated / non
existent company is non~est in terms of the decision of the
Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki and is thus liable to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 04:28:53 pm )
W.P. Nos.23194 and 23200 of 2021
9. Yet another submission made by the learned counsel for
the respondent was that the petitioner had not deactivated their
PAN to justify the assessments being made in the name of the
amalgamating company. However, this again does not justify the
passing of an assessment order in the name of a company which
has got amalgamated and thus non~existent. In this regard
reliance was placed on the judgment of the Bombay High Court
in the case of Diversey India Hygiene Private Limited v. Dr.Sunil
Moti Lala. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“6. The fact that PAN was not deactivated would
not help the Revenue because there could be cases relating
to various years when the company was in existence and it
is possible those PAN numbers are picked up for scrutiny or
for issuance of refund. That in our view, will not be a
sanction for Department to issue notices to a non~ existing
entity, particularly, when they were aware that the entity
was not in existence.”
10. From the above discussion I am of the view that the
case on hand stands covered by the decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki and thus the impugned order
of assessment in the name of the amalgamating company i.e.,
Pharmazell Vizag Pvt. Ltd. which was not in existence on the
date of passing the impugned order cannot be sustained and thus
the impugned order is quashed. ....”
4. The learned counsel for the respondent initially submitted that
the respondent authority was not aware of the amalgamation. When the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 04:28:53 pm )
W.P. Nos.23194 and 23200 of 2021
show cause notice (extracted supra) was pointed, to state that the officer
was informed and aware of the factum of amalgamation, the learned
counsel for respondent would request liberty to proceed afresh against
the resultant company.
5. Following the above order of this Court in W.P.No.22468 of
2021 dated 27.02.2024, impugned order is set aside. Respondents are at
liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
6. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
17.04.2025
Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
spp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 04:28:53 pm )
W.P. Nos.23194 and 23200 of 2021
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
spp
To:
Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise,
South Commissionerate,
MHU Complex, 692 Anna Salai,
Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.
W.P. Nos.23194 and 23200 of 2021
and
17.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/05/2025 04:28:53 pm )
