THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE OF JAMMU INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT COMMISSIONER vs M/S.SUDERSHAN STEEL (P) LTD. MANAGING DIRECTOR — C.A. No. 9847/2011
Case under Section XI-B. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010007062006
Filing Date
04-Jan-2006
Registration No
C.A. No. 9847/2011
Diary Number
706/2006
Order Date
18-Aug-2017
Document Type
Judgement - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Allowed
Last updated 15-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE OF JAMMU INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT COMMISSIONER
Adv. SUNIL FERNANDES (Dead / Retired / Elevated) M. SHOEB ALAM (Dead / Retired / Elevated) M. SHOEB ALAM (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [P-2]
Respondent(s)
-
1.M/S.SUDERSHAN STEEL (P) LTD. MANAGING DIRECTOR
Adv. M. P. DEVANATH
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
18-Aug-2017
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha
-
09-Aug-2017
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
11-Mar-2016
ROPView PDF
-
11-Mar-2016
ROPView PDF
-
14-Dec-2015
ROPView PDF
-
14-Dec-2015
ROPView PDF
-
17-Sep-2015
ROPView PDF
-
17-Sep-2015
ROPView PDF
-
04-Aug-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-Aug-2015
Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-Aug-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
13-Apr-2015
ROPView PDF
-
13-Apr-2015
ROPView PDF
-
07-Jan-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
07-Jan-2015
Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF
-
07-Jan-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
27-Oct-2014
ROPView PDF
-
05-Sep-2014
ROPView PDF
-
05-Sep-2014
ROPView PDF
-
21-Jul-2014
ROPView PDF
-
28-Apr-2014
ROPView PDF
-
10-Mar-2014
ROPView PDF
-
07-Feb-2014
ROPView PDF
-
15-Jan-2014
ROPView PDF
-
23-Oct-2013
ROPView PDF
-
10-Sep-2013
ROPView PDF
-
30-Jul-2013
ROPView PDF
-
09-Apr-2013
ROPView PDF
-
29-Oct-2012
ROPView PDF
-
18-Jul-2012
ROPView PDF
-
25-Jan-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-Nov-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
10-Oct-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
01-Aug-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
05-Jul-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
28-Mar-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
28-Feb-2011
ROPView PDF
-
24-Jan-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
10-Dec-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
10-Nov-2010
ROPView PDF
-
09-Jul-2010
ROPView PDF
-
23-Apr-2010
ROPView PDF
-
23-Mar-2010
ROPView PDF
-
22-Feb-2010
ROPView PDF
-
12-Jan-2010
ROPView PDF
-
30-Nov-2009
ROPView PDF
-
17-Aug-2009
ROPView PDF
-
20-Mar-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
11-Feb-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
13-Jan-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-Dec-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Nov-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
01-Oct-2008
ROPView PDF
-
10-Sep-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
05-Aug-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-May-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-Apr-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-Feb-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
10-Oct-2007
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
17-Jul-2007
ROPView PDF
-
30-Mar-2007
ROPView PDF
-
09-Feb-2007
ROPView PDF
-
18-Aug-2006
ROPView PDF
-
19-Jul-2006
ROPView PDF
-
24-Apr-2006
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Apr-2006
ROPView PDF
-
04-Jan-2006
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 9847/2011
Common Record of Proceedings — heard with connected matters
Lead case: C.A. No. 9844/2011
Case Summary State of Jammu and Kashmir v. M/s. Trikuta Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Others (Civil Appeals 9844-9849/2011 and SLP(C) 5803, 5835/2006) The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeals, setting aside the High Court's order that had invalidated a 1993 policy capping CST refunds to SSI units. The State had initially offered 100% CST refunds on raw materials, later modified the scheme with sliding scales, and finally capped refunds at Rs. 2 lacs per annum per unit citing fraudulent claims and revenue erosion. The Court held that economic policy decisions fall within executive discretion and cannot be judicially reviewed for sufficiency of reasons, only for arbitrariness. The Court found the State's concerns about false claims (including non-existent suppliers and mismatched receipts) were valid justifications. However, the Court clarified that previously granted and availed benefits shall not be withdrawn or reopened. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts