IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
W.P. Nos.5518 & 1555 of 2020 and 27100 & 30004 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 01.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
W.P. Nos.5518 & 1555 of 2020 and
27100 & 30004 of 2019
and
WMP. Nos.1820, 6451, 6452, 6453, 1821 of 2020 29909,
29912, 29906, 26478 & 26479 of 2019
Greenwood Owners Association,
Rep. by its President,
Mr.thilak K Nath,
Buckingham Street,
House of Hiranandani,
5/63, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Egattur,
Thalambur Post, Chennai – 600 130.
.. Petitioner in W.P. No.5518 of 2020
Oceanic Owners Association,
Rep. by its President,
Maj.Gen.Jose Joseph Manavalan,
Buckingham Street, Oceanic,
House of Hiranandani,
5/63, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Egattur,
Thalambur Post, Chennai – 600 130.
.. Petitioner in W.P. No.1555 of 2020
M/s.TVH Lumbini Square Owners Association
Represented by its Secretary Mr.A.M.Fakri
Near 2 Block 127A TVH Lumbini Square,
1
| th |
W.P. Nos.5518 & 1555 of 2020 and 27100 & 30004 of 2019
- ricklin Road, Purasawalkam,
- hennai 600 007.
.. Petitioner in W.P. No.27100 of 2019
Sanjay Kumar Gupta,
No.2, R.K.Mutt Road,
Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004.
.. Petitioner in W.P. No.30004 of 2019
Vs
1.The Union of India,
Represented by Secretary to Government,
Department of Revenue,
- inistry of Finance,
- orth Block, New Delhi.
2. Principal Chief Commissioner of
GST and Central Excise,
26/1, Uthamar Gandhi Road,
Thousand Lights West,
Chennai 600 034.
… Respondents in W.P. Nos.5518, 1555 of 2020 & 30004 of 2019
1.The Union of India,
Represented by Secretary to Government,
Department of Revenue,
- inistry of Finance,
- orth Block, New Delhi.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of
Central Excise and Service Tax,
Pursawalkam Division,
Chennai North Commissionerate,
Newry Towers, No.2054, I Block,
II Avenue, 12 Main Road,
2
| nd | |||||||
| st | |||||||
| rd | |||||||
| st |
W.P. Nos.5518 & 1555 of 2020 and 27100 & 30004 of 2019
Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040.
3 Tamil Nadu Authority for Advance Ruling (GST),
PAPJM Buildings, 2 Floor,
Greams Road, Chennai 600 006.
… Respondents in W.P. No.27100 of 2019
Common Prayer in W.P. Nos.5518 & 1555 of 2020 and 30004 of 2019 : The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned Circular dated 22.07.2019 bearing Reference No.109/28/2019-GST issued by the 1 Respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Central Goods and Sales Tax Act, 2017.
Prayer in W.P. No.27100 of 2019 : The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the impugned order No.25/ARA/2019, dated 21.06.2019 passed by the 3 respondent and Point No.5 of the Circular No.109/28/2019, dated 22.07.2019 issued by the 1 respondent and quash the same as being ultravires and contrary to the provisions of S.No.77 of Notification 12/2017 Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 11(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as amended by Notification 2/2018 Central Tax (Rate) Dated 25.01.2018 and declare the said Order and Circular as violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) Order and Circular as violate of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and Article 265 of the Constitution of India.
3
W.P. Nos.5518 & 1555 of 2020 and 27100 & 30004 of 2019
For Petitioner : M/s.Meera Moganasundan
In W.P. No.5518 of 2020
Ms.R. Vaishali
In W.P. Nos.1555 of 2020
and W.P. No.30004 of 2019 Mr.G.Nataarajan,
In W.P. No.27100 of 2019
For Respondents : Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan,
Senior Standing Counsel
in W.P. Nos.5518 of 2020,
27100 & 30004 of 2019
in 1555 of 2020 for R2 Mr.C.Kulandaivel,
Senior Panel Counsel for R1
in W.P. No.1555 of 2020
C O M M O N O R D E R
All petitioners are Resident Welfare Associations (RWA) in apartment complexes, barring one individual, who is a resident in an apartment.
2. The petitioner in W.P.No.27100 of 2019 challenges an order of the
Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) levying tax on the entirety of the
contribution by him to a RWA and the petitioners in W.P.Nos.5518 and 1555
of 2020 and 30004 of 2019 challenge Circular No.109/28/2019 dated 22.07.2019, also on the same issue.
3. We are concerned with the period post 01.07.2017 when the Goods
and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act) was introduced. With the onset of
4
W.P. Nos.5518 & 1555 of 2020 and 27100 & 30004 of 2019
GST, various services in respect of which GST was to be levied and collected
came under the scanner. Exemptions were granted under Notification 12/17-
CT dated 28.06.2017. The Circular to the extent to which it is relevant, is extracted below:
Exemption from CGST on specified intra-State services.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017), the Central
Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to
do, on the recommendations of the Council, hereby exempts the intra-State
supply of services of description as specified in column (3) of the Table below
from so much of the central tax leviable thereon under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the said Act, as is in excess of the said tax calculated at the rate as specified in the corresponding Entry in column (4) of the said Table, unless specified otherwise, subject to the relevant conditions as specified in the corresponding Entry in column (5) of the said Table namely,
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | |
| Sl. No. | Chapter, Section, Heading, Group or Service Code (Tarrif) | Description of services | Rate (per cent.) | Condition | |
| 1 | ……… | ||||
| 77 | Heading 9995 | Service by an unincorporated body or a non-profit entity registered under any law for the time being in force, to its own members by way of reimbursement of charges or share of contribution- (a) as a trade union; (b) for the provision of carrying out any activity which is exempt from the levy of Goods and Service tax; or (c) up to an amount of five thousand rupees per | Nil | Nil |
5
W.P. Nos.5518 & 1555 of 2020 and 27100 & 30004 of 2019
month* per member for
sourcing of goods or
services from a third
person for the common use
of its members in a housing
society or a residential
complex.
* Amended to Rs.7,500/- vide Notification No.2/18 dated 25.01.2018.
4. Thus, an exemption was granted to contributions made to RWA
upto an amount of Rs.7,500 /- per month per member for sourcing of goods and
services from a third person for the common use of the members of RWA, i.e.,
housing complexes or residential complexes. Since contributions solicited
from members of RWA were on some occasions more than Rs.7,500/- as well,
one of the questions that arose was whether, in a case where the contribution
exceeded the amount of Rs.7,500/-, the resident in that RWA would lose the
entitlement to exemption altogether, as a result that the entire contribution
would be liable to GST or whether the exemption would still continue to be
available upto to a sum of Rs.7,500/- and only the difference (excess) becoming exigible to tax.
5. In the early years of GST, The Goods and Services Tax Department
issued a clarification in the case of Co-operative Housing Societies, wherein
6
W.P. Nos.5518 & 1555 of 2020 and 27100 & 30004 of 2019
they categorically stated that GST would be applicable only on the amount in
excess of Rs.7,500/-. The fliers covers all Co-operative Housing Societies, in
essence, RWAs, Housing Societies or Societies in residential complexes. Thus
and since this clarification had been issued, this was the methodology that was
followed by all RWAs consistently in the collection of contributions and levy of GST thereupon.
6. While this is so and this method was being followed from 2017 till
2019, one of the petitioners, ie.,. W.P.No.27100 of 2019 approached the AAR
seeking clarification in regard to this issue. The AAR, by impugned order
dated 21.06.2019, held adverse to it stating that the grant of exemption was
conditional upon the contribution being an amount of Rs.7,500/- or less. If the
contribution exceeded the sum of Rs.7,500/-, then the very entitlement of that
RWA to exemption would stand defeated and the entirety of the amount collected would have to be brought to tax.
7. The relevant portion of the ruling of the AAR is as follows:
RULING
If a service by the applicant, a registered housing society/resident welfare association to its members by way of reimbursement of charges or share of contribution for sourcing of goods or services from a third person for the common use of its members, is such that it is above 7500 rupees per month effective from 25.01.2018 (5000 rupees before), it is not eligible S No 77 (c) of Notification No. 12/2017-C.T. (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 as amended for CGST and of SI No 77 (c) of Notification No.11(2)/CTR/532(d-15)/2017 vide G.O. (Ms) No. 73 dated 29.06.2017 as amended for SGST. COST and SGST
7
| nd |
W.P. Nos.5518 & 1555 of 2020 and 27100 & 30004 of 2019
at appropriate rates are to be paid by the members on the full amount of reimbursement of charges or share of contribution,
8. Taking inspiration from this position, the impugned Circular has
come to be passed toeing the line of the AAR. The question and answer relating to this issue is extracted below:
Circular No.109/28/2019-GST
F. No.332/04/2017-TRIJ
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
(Tax Research Unit)
*****
New Delhi, the 22 July, 2019
To,
The Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioners/Principal Commissioner/Commissioner of Central Tax (All)/The Principal Director Generals/Director Generals (All)
Madam Sir,
Subject: Issues related to GST on monthly subscription/contribution charged by a Residential Welfare Association from its members – reg.
| Sl. No. | Issue | Clarification | |
| 1. | …….. | ||
| 5. | How should the RWA calculate GST payable where the maintenance charges exceed Rs.7500/- per month per member? Is the GST payable only on the amount exceeding Rs.7500/- or on the entire amount of maintenance charges? | The exemption from GST on maintenance charges charged by a RWA from residents is available only if such charges do not exceed Rs.7500/- per month per member. In case the charges exceed Rs.7500/- per month per member, the entire amount is taxable. For example, if the maintenance charges are Rs.9000/- per month per member, GST @ 18% shall be payable on the entire amount of Rs.9000/- and not on (Rs.9000- Rs.7500) = Rs.1500/- |
8
W.P. Nos.5518 & 1555 of 2020 and 27100 & 30004 of 2019
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that this
interpretation is contrary to the express language as well as the intendment of
the exemption granted. They take me through various instances of grant of
exemption under different Indirect Tax enactments, to illustrate the difference
in language used and the meaning conveyed. Emphasis is placed on the use of
the phrase ‘upto’ in the relevant Entry stating that the grant of exemption was
for contribution upto Rs.7,500/- and this entitlement remained constant notwithstanding any change in the amount of contribution.
10. My attention is drawn to Article 13(3) of the Constitution of India,
as per which ‘law’ would include any Ordinance or Bye law, Rule, Regulation,
Notification, custom or usage, excluding Circulars. Thus the withdrawal of a
statutory exemption by way of a Circular is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution.
11. Based on the aforesaid clarification initially issued by the
Department, the petitioner RWAs have been collecting tax only on that
component of the contribution that exceeds Rs.7,500/-. They urge that if a
contrary view were to be taken at this juncture, it would be impossible for the
Associations to collect the shortfall as there would have been several changes in ownership of the property, in the interim.
9
| st |
W.P. Nos.5518 & 1555 of 2020 and 27100 & 30004 of 2019
12. Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue would
stress on the provisions of Section 15 of the GST Act, as per which, it is the
transaction value that is liable to GST. The transaction value in this case is
represented by the contribution made and it should, in entirety, be taken into
account for the purpose of levying tax. She points out that the exemption is intended for the middle class and not for luxury apartments/their owners.
13. She compares the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Additional Sales
Tax Act, 1970 (TNAST), particularly the charging section, Section 2 to state
that where Legislature intended beneficial tax treatment by insisting upon a
slab rate, such slab is usually indicated in the Statute itself. In the case of levy of TNAST, the charge is as follows:
(3) By Act 35 of 1986, which came into force on 1 April 1986, the words ‘
three lakhs’ in sub-section (1) of this section was increased to ‘ten lakhs’
and the four slabs mentioned above were replaced by two slabs as under:-
Rate of tax
(i ) where taxable turnover exceeds ten 1.25 percent of the taxable
Lakhs of rupees but does not exceed turnover
Forty lakhs of rupees
(ii) Where the taxable turnover 1.5 percent of the taxable turnover
Forty lakhs of rupees
14. In the instant case, there is no slab prescribed, but only a range
which entitles the assessee to exemption. Any variation in that amount thus
leads to automatic disentitlement, according to her. She relies on the judgment
of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner
10
W.P. Nos.5518 & 1555 of 2020 and 27100 & 30004 of 2019
of Customs Import, Mumbai V. Dilip Kumar & Company (361 ELT 577),
wherein the Supreme Court dealing with the grant of exemption from duty
under the Customs Act, 1962, holding that, in the case of ambiguity in
interpretation of a tax exemption provision or Notification in regard to its
applicability qua entitlement or rate of tax to be applied, the interpretation
should be strict and the burden of proving applicability would fall on the
assessee. In this case as well, she would say, the exemption provision must be
construed strictly and the petitioners are thus not entitled to seek beneficial treatment.
15. To summarise, her submission is that while a contribution of
Rs.7,500/- or less would entitle the concerned assessee to the grant of
exemption, if the contribution exceeded Rs.7,500/-, there was an automatic disentitlement.
16. Heard learned counsel. I am of the view that there is no ambiguity
in the language of the exemption provision in this case and thus the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Dilip Kumar (supra) would not be applicable to the
facts and circumstances of this case. The ratio of that decision would apply
only in a case where the provisions granting exemptions are ambiguous,
whereas, in the present case, the Entry, in my view, is clear and hence it is only a question of interpreting the same.
11
W.P. Nos.5518 & 1555 of 2020 and 27100 & 30004 of 2019
17. The intention of the Circular appears clear, that is, to grant
exemption in regard to the receipts from services that answer to the description
set out therein. The description of the services is also clear, that is, services to
the members of an unincorporated body or non-profit by way of reimbursement
of charges or share of contribution upto an amount of Rs.7,500/- in the sourcing
of goods or services from a third person for the common use of its members.
No ambiguity presents itself on a plain reading of the Entry and the intention is
clear, so as to remove from the purview of taxation contribution upto an amount of Rs.7,500/-.
18. Let me compare the Entry in question with other entries granting exemptions. The difference in language is emphasized in bold.
(i) SSI Exemption Notification No. 8/2003 C.E. dt. 01.03.2003.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) (herein after referred to as the Central Excise Act) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 8/2002-Central Excise, dated the 1st March, 2002, published in the Gazette of India vide number G.S.R. 129(E), dated the 1st March, 2002, the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts clearances, specified in column (2) of the Table below (hereinafter referred to as the said Table) for home consumption of excisable goods of the description specified in the Annexure appended to this notification (hereinafter referred to as the specified goods), from so much of the aggregate of, –
Table
| S. N o | Value of clearances | Rate of duty | |
| (1) | (2) | (3) |
12
W.P. Nos.5518 & 1555 of 2020 and 27100 & 30004 of 2019
(ii) S.No.28 of Notification No. 25/2012-Service Tax Dt.20.06.2012 Incorporating changes made till issuance of notification no 10/2017-Service Tax dated 8-3-2017 G.S.R. 467(E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1) of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and in supersession of notification number 12/2012- Service Tax, dated the 17th March, 2012, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R. 210 (E), dated the 17th March, 2012, the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the following taxable services from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon under section 66B of the said Act, namely:-
……….
28. Service by an unincorporated body or a non- profit entity registered under any law for the time being in force, to its own members by way of reimbursement of charges or share of contribution –
- as a trade union; (No monetary limit)
- for the provision of carrying out any activity which is exempt from the levy of service tax; or (No monetary limit)
- up to an amount of five thousand rupees per month per member for sourcing of goods or services from a third person for the common use of its members in a housing society or a residential complex;
.
(iii) S.No.30 of Notification 25/2012 ST Dt.20.06.2012.
Notification No. 25/2012-Service Tax dated- 20th June, 2012, as amended. Incorporating changes made till issuance of notification no 10/2017-Service Tax dated 8-3-2017 G.S.R. 467(E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1) of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and in supersession of notification number 12/2012- Service Tax, dated the 17th March, 2012, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R. 210 (E), dated the 17th March, 2012, the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the following taxable
13
W.P. Nos.5518 & 1555 of 2020 and 27100 & 30004 of 2019
services from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon under section 66B of
the said Act, namely:-
30. Services by way of carrying out,- (i) any process amounting to manufacture
or production of goods excluding alcoholic liquor for human consumption; or
……..
(d) processes of electroplating, zinc plating, anodizing, heat treatment, powder coating, painting including spray painting or auto black, during the course of manufacture of parts of cycles or sewing machines upto an aggregate value of taxable service of the specified processes of one hundred and fifty lakh rupees in a financial year subject to the condition that such aggregate value had not exceeded one hundred and fifty lakh rupees during the preceding financial year;”.
.
(iv) S.No.47 of Notification 25/2012 ST Dt.20.06.2012.
Notification No. 25/2012-Service Tax dated- 20th June, 2012, as amended.
Incorporating changes made till issuance of notification no 10/2017-Service
Tax dated 8-3-2017 G.S.R. 467(E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1) of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and in supersession of notification number 12/2012- Service Tax, dated the 17th March, 2012, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R. 210 (E), dated the 17th March, 2012, the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the following taxable services from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon under section 66B of the said Act, namely:-
…..
“47.Services by way of right to admission to,-
……….
(iii) award function, concert, pageant, musical performance or any sporting event other than a recognised sporting event, where the consideration for admission is not more than Rs 500 per person.”.
(v) S.No.56 of Notification 25/2012
Notification No. 25/2012-Service Tax dated- 20th June, 2012, as amended.
Incorporating changes made till issuance of notification no 10/2017-Service
Tax dated 8-3-2017.
……..
56. Services provided by Government or a local authority where the gross amount charged for such services does not exceed Rs. 5000/- :
Provided that nothing contained in this Entry shall apply to services specified
in sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause (a) of section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994:
Provided further that in case where continuous supply of service, as defined in clause (c) of rule 2 of the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011, is provided by the
14
W.P. Nos.5518 & 1555 of 2020 and 27100 & 30004 of 2019
Government or a local authority, the exemption shall apply only where the gross amount charged for such service does not exceed Rs. 5000/- in a financial year;
19. A reading of the above extracts would indicate the difference in
language adopted by the revenue in the matter of grant of exemptions. In a case
where legislature intended that the exemption shall apply only to cases where
the amount charged does not exceed a specified pecuniary limit, it states as
much, as can be seen from the language deployed in the proviso to Clause 56 in
Notification 25 of 2012 where it is stated ‘the exemption shall apply only
where the gross amount charged for such service does not exceed Rs.5,000/- in a financial year’.
20. Then again in Notification No.12/2017 dated 28.06.2017, Entry 78, dealing with services rendered by an artist reads thus:
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | |
| Sl. No. | Chapter, Section, Heading, Group or Service Code (Tarrif) | Description of services | Rate (per cent.) | Condition | |
| 1 | ……… |
15
W.P. Nos.5518 & 1555 of 2020 and 27100 & 30004 of 2019
78 Heading 9996 Services by an artist by
way of a performance in folk or classical art forms of-
- music, or
- dance, or
- theatre,
if the consideration
charged for such
performance is not more than one lakh and fifty thousand rupees:
Provided that the
exemption shall not apply to service provided by such artist as a brand
ambassador..
Nil Nil
21. Here too, the categorization of ‘artist’ is on the basis of the earning of
the artist, one who charges less than Rs.1.50 lakhs and one who charges more.
The intention is clear, to exempt only such consideration, which is below
Rs.1.50 lakhs. If the consideration exceeds Rs.1.50 lakhs by even a rupee, the
artist would stand elevated to the next slab, losing the benefit of exemption.
22. It is relevant to note that entries 77 and 78 are from the same circular
thus the choice of words employed is a conscious one intended to have different applications.
23. In the case of Dilip Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court reiterates the
settled proposition that an Exemption Notification must be interpreted strictly.
The plain words employed in Entry 77 being, ‘upto’ an amount of Rs.7,500/-
16
W.P. Nos.5518 & 1555 of 2020 and 27100 & 30004 of 2019
can thus only be interpreted to state that any contribution in excess of the same would be liable to tax.
24. The term ‘upto’ hardly needs to be defined and connotes an upper
limit. It is interchangeable with the term ‘till ’ and means that any amount till the ceiling of Rs.7,500/- would exempt for the purposes of GST.
25. As regards the argument concerning slab rate, a slab is a measure of
determining tax liability. The prescription of a slab connotes that income upto
that slab would stand outside the purview of tax on exigible to a lower rate of
tax and income above that slab would be treated differently. The intendment of
the exemption Entry in question is simply to exempt contributions till a certain
specified limit. The clarification by the GST Department even as early as in 2017 has taken the correct view.
26. The discussion as above leaves me no doubt that the conclusion of
the AAR as well as the Circular to the effect that any contribution above
Rs.7,500/- would disentitle the RWA to exemption, is contrary to the express
language of the Entry in question and both stand quashed. To clarify, it is only
contributions to RWA in excess of Rs.7,500/- that would be taxable under GST Act.
17
| th | nd |
W.P. Nos.5518 & 1555 of 2020 and 27100 & 30004 of 2019
27. These writ Petitions are allowed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
01.07.2021
Internet: Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
Speaking order/Non speaking order
sl
To
1.The Union of India,
Represented by Secretary to Government,
Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Assistant Commissioner of
Central Excise and Service Tax,
Pursawalkam Division,
Chennai North Commissionerate,
Newry Towers, No.2054, I Block,
II Avenue, 12 Main Road,
Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040.
3 Tamil Nadu Authority for Advance Ruling (GST),
PAPJM Buildings, 2 Floor,
Greams Road, Chennai 600 006.
4. Principal Chief Commissioner of
GST and Central Excise,
26/1, Uthamar Gandhi Road,
Thousand Lights West,
Chennai 600 034.
18
W.P. Nos.5518 & 1555 of 2020 and 27100 & 30004 of 2019
Dr.ANITA SUMANTH.J.,
sl
W.P. Nos.5518 & 1555 of 2020 and
27100 & 30004 of 2019
and
WMP. Nos.1820, 6451, 6452, 6453, 1821 of 2020 29909,
29912, 29906, 26478 & 26479 of 2019
01.07.2021
19
