M/S CORNING TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND OTHERS — CWP/5527/2025
Case under Constitution of India Section 226/227. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 13th May 2026.
CNR: PHHC010315332025
e-Filing Number
24-02-2025
Filing Number
CWP/11901/2025
Filing Date
25-Feb-2025
Registration No
CWP/5527/2025
Registration Date
25-Feb-2025
Judge
Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal , Ms. Justice Lapita Banerji
Coram
Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal , Ms. Justice Lapita Banerji
Bench Type
Double
Category
6.42 - GOODS AND SERVICE TAX WRIT HARYANA (INDIRECT) ( 392 )
Sub-Category
( 944 )
Judicial Branch
WRITS -I BRANCH
Decision Date
13-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
--DISPOSED OF
Last updated 01-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.M/S CORNING TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT LTD
Adv. RISHAB SINGLA
-
2.M/s Corning Technologies India Pvt Ltd
Respondent(s)
-
1.COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND OTHERS
-
2.M/s Corning Technologies India Pvt Ltd
-
3.Additional Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax
-
4.Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-May-2026
Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal,ms. Justice Lapita BanerjiView PDF
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed the GST assessment order dated 29.11.2024 against Corning Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., finding it discriminatory. The court noted that for identical service transactions across multiple tax periods (July 2017-March 2023), the revenue had granted refunds treating the petitioner as an exporter in some periods but imposed tax in others, with no factual or legal distinction offered to justify this inconsistent treatment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
25-Feb-2025
Case filed
Registration No. CWP/5527/2025
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed the GST assessment order dated 29.11.2024 against Corning Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., finding it discriminatory. The court noted that for identical service transactions across multiple tax periods (July 2017-March 2023), the revenue had granted refunds treating the petitioner as an exporter in some periods but imposed tax in others, with no factual or legal distinction offered to justify this inconsistent treatment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts