Disposed

M/S Alaya International Private Limited v. The Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax

Telangana HC29 Jan 2025WP/465/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenged customs revaluation orders releasing consignments under SEZ provisions. The Court held that an efficacious statutory appeal to the Tribunal existed, that mere breach of natural justice does not compel entertainment of a writ petition, and declined to entertain them.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S Alaya International Private Limited Vs The… — Customs and Excise | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

I^3446l

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENW NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

Ti E HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY^PAUL ANO

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NOS: 46s. 481 AND 530 OF 2025

¶8

W.P.NO: 465 OF 2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

tr,4/s Alaya lnternational Private Limited, Now at Plot No.17 aN^{'!q, Fgp City} Road, iRaviryal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal,^{Ranga ReddyDistrict,} Telangana, R/o H.No. i 7-t -382lSN/5, Srinivasa Nagar, Saidabad,^Hyderabad, Rep.6yitsManagingDirector,DonthineniRaghunandan.

¶11

...pETlTlONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The Directorate General of Goods and Services^{Tax,(DGGST),Ministryof} Finance Department of Revenue, 5th Floor, MTNL,^{TelephoneExchange,} Building 8 Bhikati Cama Place, New Delhi^{- '1 10066.}

¶14

The Union of lndia, Mininitry of Commerce and^{lndustry, New Delhi, rep. by its} Secreta ry.

¶15

The Commissioner of Customs and Central^{Tax, Appeals -1, Hyderabad} Commissionerate, 7th Floor, GST Bhavan, L.B^{Stadium Road, Basheerbagh,} Hyderabad-500004, Telangana State.

¶16

The Principal Commissioner of Customs, GST Bhavan,^{L.B Stadium Road,} Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500004, Telangana State.

¶17

The Additjonal Commissioner of Customs,^{Hyderabad GST Bhavan, L.B} Stadium Road, Basheerbag,^{Hyderabad-500004}

¶18

The Deputy Commissioner,^{lnland ContainerDepot, Container Corporationof} lndia Limited, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad.

¶19

The Terminal Manager, Container Corporation^{of lndia Limited,(A} Government of lndia Undertaking under Ministry of^{Railways), lnland} Container Depot), Sanathnagar, New^{Railway GoodsShed Road, Moosapet,} Hyderabad^- 500018.

¶20

The Development Commissiner,^{Deputy DevelopmentCommissiner'} Visakhapatnam Special EconomicZone, Sub Office.Sth^{Floor, Parisrama} Bhavan, Bashir Bagh, Hyderabad^{- 500004, Telangana State.}

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

¶23

a Writ of MANDAMUS,^{declaring the ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL No.66/20't9,dated} 05.09.2019, O.R No.17712018,^{C712019, 08/2019and :18/201g-Ajn.(Cus)(ADC),} passed by the Sth respondent herein against the^{requesi of the Petitioner herein} for clearance of Bills of Entry in^respect of^{usedand new goods mentioned} lnvoices raised by self against^{the FOB values at the pr':vailing rate per USD at} the time of filing of Bills of^{Entry,i.e. in respect of (1) Bill of Entry Nos.7628454'} dated 14.O8.2018,^{(2) No.4858612,dated18.01.2018,(3) No.5106823,dated} 07.02.2018 and⁽⁴⁾ No.8679595,^{dated31.10.2018and the Appeal Order passed} by the 3rd Respondent herein^{in OIA No.HYD-CUS-O0C-APP-065-19-20(APP-|),} dated 30.12.2019, the further^{order passedby the 5th Respondent herein in} ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL No 31/2020^{(Denovo),OR No.06i2O2O-Adin Cus(ADC)} 885, D|N.20200556MD00000E4C00,^{dated30.o4.2O2O,t]rder in Appeal passed} by the 4th Respondent herein^{in ORDER-lN-ORIGINALNo.HYD-CUS-89-COM-} 23-24 (Denovo), (in O^{R No.141l2023-Ad1n-Cus(ADC)(DENOVO)'dated} 09.10.2023 and the confirmation^{Appeal Order passed by the 3rd Respondent} herein i.e. ORDER-lN-APPEAL^{No.HYD-CUS-000-APP1-003-24-25,dated} 26.06.2024 (Appeal No.120/2023-CUS. O-in-O^{No llYD-CUS-89'COM-23-2} (Denovo), dated 09.10.2023, by re-valuating old used^{goods as new goods without} considering the original bills submitted by^{the Petitioner and destructingthe} original bitls^produced and by^{setting someof them aside,without considering the} Special Economic Zone^(SEZ) approval^{granted in favour of the Petitioner by the} 8th Respondent herein, contrary to^{Sections 12, 17 (2) and 111 of TheCustoms} Act, 1962 (Act No.52 of 1962) and Second^{Proviso to Secr.ron 26 and 27(7\ of The} Special Economic Zones Act, 2005^{(Act 28 of 2005)and set aside them as illegal,} arbitrary, capricious and violative of^{Article14, l9(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution} of lndia and Consequently direct the^{Respondents 3 to 7 hereinto release the} consignments by considering^{the originalbillsproducec by the Petitionerand} revaluate the^goods to release, covered^{underBillsof Entriesas mentioned above} in terms of Section 27(7) oI The Special^{Economic ZonesAct, 2005 (Act 28 of} 2005), forthwith.

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumslances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court nray be^pleased to^direct the Respondents 3 to 7 herein to release the consignments by considering^the original bills^produced by the Petitioner and revaluate the^goods to^release, covered under Bills of Entries in respect of⁽¹⁾ Bill of^{Entry Nos,7628454, dated} 14.08.2018, (2) No.4858612, dt.1810112018, 3)^No.5106823, dl:^{0710212018 and} (4) No.8679595, dated 31 .10.2018 in terms of Section 27(7) ol The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005^(Act 28 of 20O5),^pending disposal of the above^Writ Petition.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.R.SASIDHARAN NAIR FOR SRI KUTURU RAVINDER REDDY PRATAP REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 TO 7: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, Senior standing counsel for CBIC Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.8:^--

¶27

W.P.NO: 481 OF 2025

¶28

Between:

¶29

M/s Alaya lnternational Private Limited, Now at Plot No.17 a@ 18, Fab City Road, Raviryal Village, I,4aheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, Ryo H. No.1 7-1-382lSNi5, Srinivasa Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Director, Donthineni Raghunandan.

¶30

...pETlTlONER

¶31

AND

¶32

The Directorate General of Goods and Services^{Tax,(DGGST), Ministryof} Finance Department of Revenue,^Sth Floor,^{MTNL, Telephone} Exchange, Building 8 Bhikalr Cama Place. New Delhi^{- 110066.}

¶33

The Union of lndia, Ivlinistry of Commerce and^{lndustry, NewDelhi, rep. by its} Secretary.

¶34

The Conimissioner of Customs and^{Central Tax, Appeals-1, Hyderabad} Commissionerate, 7th Floor, GST Bhavan,^{L.B Stadium Road, Basheerbagh,} Hyderabad-500004, Telangana State.

¶35

The Principal Commissioner of Customs, GST Bhavan,^{LB Stadium Road,} Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500004, Telangana State.

¶36

The Additiohal Commissioner of Customs,^{Hyderabad GSTBhavan, L.B} Stadium Road, Basheerbag, Hyderabad-500004.

¶37

The Deputy Commissioner,^lnland Container^{Depot, Container Corporationof} lndia Limited, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad.

¶38

The Terminal Manager, Contarner Corporation of lndia Limited,^(A Government of lndia Undertaking under Ministry^{of Railways), lnland}

¶39

Container Depot), Sanathnagar,^{New RailwayGoods; Shed Road, Moosapet,} Hvderabad^- 500018.

¶40

The Development Commissioner^{/ DeputyDeveloprrentCommissiner,} Visakhapatnam Special. Economic^{Zone, Sub Office. 5th Floor, Parisrama} Bhavan, Bashir Bagh, Hyderabad^{- 500004,Telangana State.}

¶41

...RESPONDENTS

¶42

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith,the High Court maybe} pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction^{more particularlyone in the nature of} a Writ of MANDAMUS, declaring the^{ORDER-lN-ORIGll\lAL No.69/2020-Adj Cus} ADC, dated 08.10.2020, O.R.No.45/2020-Adjn Cus^ADC'DIN- 20210856MD00009CF63E,^{passedby the 4th Responrlentherein againstthe} request of the Petitioner herein for clearance^{of Bills of Entry in respect of used} and new^goods mentioned^{in lnvoices raised by self againstthe FOB valuesat the} prevailing rate per USD at the time of filing of Bills of^{E ntry No 51 12365,dated} 07.02.2018, whereby rejecting the^{request of the Petitiorrerfor clearance, which} was passed fotlowed by a Show^{Cause Noticein O. R. No.45/2020-AdjnCus} (ADC), C.NoSl26lMisc.l0412020-lCD, D1N 202007s6\1D0000-6S994C,^dated 02.O7 .2020, without^giving any^{opportunityto the Petitic ner, by re-valuatingold} used goods as new^{goods without considering the original bills submitted by the} Petitioner and destructing the original bills^{producedand by setting some of them} aside, without considering the Special^{EconomicZone (SEZ) approval granted in} favour of the Petitioner by the 8th Respondent^{herern,corltraryto Sections 12, 17} (2) and 111 of The Customs Act, 1962^(Act No.52 of^{1962) and Second Proviso to} Section 26 and 27(7) of The Special^{EconomtcZones Aot. 2005 (Act 28 of 2005)} and set aside them as illegal, arbitrary,^{capricious and violative of Article 14,} t 9(t )(g) and 21 of the Constitution of^lndia and^{Consequently direct the} Respondents 3 to 7 herein to release^{the consignments by considering the original} bills produced by the Petitioner and^{revaluate the goods tc release,covered under} Bill of Entry as mentioned above in^terms of^{Section 27(7) of The Special} Economic Zones Act, 2005^(Act 28 of^{2005), forthwith.}

¶43

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶44

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Courtrnaybe pleased to direct}

¶45

the Respondents 3 to 7 herein to^{releasethe consignmentsby consideringthe} original bills^produced by the^{Petitioner and revaluate the goodsto release,} covered under Bill of Entry^{No.5112365, dated 07.02.20'18,in terms of Section} 27(7) of The Special Economic^{ZonesAct, 2005 (Act 28 of 2005), pending} disposal of the above Writ^Petition.

¶46

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.R.SASIOHARAN NAIR^{FOR SRI KUTURU} RAVINDER REDDY PRATAP REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 TO 7:^{SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, Senior} standing counsel for CBIC Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR'^Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.8: -

¶47

W.P.NO:530 oF 2025

¶48

Between:

¶49

M/s Alava lnternational Private Limited,^{Now at Plot No.17 and'18, FabCity} Road, ilaviryal Village.^{l,4aheshwaram Mandal, Ranga ReddyDistrict,} Telangana, Rt/o tt.No.iz-l-382lSN/5.^{Srinivasa Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad,} Rep. by its Managing Director, Donthineni Raghunandan.

¶50

...pETlTlONER AND

¶51

The Directorate General of Goods and Services^{Tax,(DGGST), Ministryof} Finance Department of Revenue, 5th^{Floor, MTNL, TelephoneExchange,} Building 8 Bhikaji Cama Place,^{New Delhi - 110066.}

¶52

The Unlon of lndia, Ministry of^{Commerceand lndustry, New Delhi, rep. by its} Secretary

¶53

The Conimissioner of Customs^{and Central Tax, Appeals-1, Hyderabad} Commissionerate, 7th Floor,^{GSTBhavan, L.B Stadium Road, Basheerbagh,} Hyderabad-500004, Telangana State.

¶54

The Principal Commission5r of Customs, GST^{Bhavan, L,B Stadium Road,} Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500004,^{Telangana State.}

¶55

The Additiohal Cbmmissioner^{of Customs, HyderabadGST Bhavan,L.B} Stadium Road, Basheerbag,^{Hyderabad-500004.}

¶56

The Deputy Commissioner,^{lnlandContainer Depot,Container Corporationof} lndia Limited, Sanathnagar,^Hyderabad.

¶57

The Terminal Manager, Container^{Corporationof lndia Limited,(A} Govemment of lndit Undertaking^{under Ministryof Railways),lnland} Container Depot), Sanathnagar,^{New Railway GoodsShed Road, Moosapet'} Hyderabad - 500018.

¶58

The Development Commissiner^{/ Depuly Development Commissiner,} Visakhapatnam Special Economic^{Zone, Sub Office.5th Floor, Parisrama} Bhavan, Bashir Bigh, Hyderabad^{- 500004,Telangana State.}

¶59

...RESPONDENTS

¶60

Petition under Article 226 of^{the Constitutron of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Court may be}

¶61

pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more^particularly one in the nature of a Writ of MANDAMUS, declaring the ORDER-lN-ORlGlN,qL^{No.224l2020-Adj Cus} DINJC, dated 06.08.2021,^{O.R.No.1212021-Adjn} Cus^JC, 20210856MD000000CD86,^{passed by the 4th ResponCent herein againstthe} request of the Petitioner herein for clearance of^{Bills of Entry in respect of used} and new goods mentioned in lnvoices raised^{by self agairst the FOB values at the} prevailing rate per USD at the time of filing of Bills of E:ntry No.6213616, dated 02.05.2018 and the Appeal Order^passed by^{the 3rd Respondent herein in} ORDE R-l N-APP EAL^No, HYD-CUS-HYC-APP^{-O42and O,t3-22'23 (APP-1} ),^{d ated} 30.11 2022, followed by Shaw Cause^{Notice in O.R.No.1212021-Adjn Cus JC,} DIN-20210256MD0000888C 1 F, dated 02.02.202'1 . bv^{re-valuatingold used} goods as new goods without considering the original bills submltted by^the Petitroner and destructing the original bills^{produced and by setting some of them} aside without considering the Special Economic^{Zone(S EZ) approval grantedin} favour of the Petitioner by the 8th Respondent^{herein, cor)trary to Sections 12, 17} (2) and 111 of The Customs Act, 1962 (Act No.52 of^1'962) and Second^Provisoto Section 26 and 27(71of The Special^{EconomicZones Act 2005(Act 28 of 2005)} and set aside them as illegal, arbitrary,^{capricious and violatrve of Article '14,} 1S(1)(q) and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and^{Consequentlydirectthe} Respondents 3 to 7 herein to release the consignments^{by consideringthe original} bills produced by the Petitioner and revaluate^{the goodstc, release,covered under} Bills of Entry as mentioned above in terms of Sectiorr²⁷⁽⁷⁾ ot^{The Special} Economic Zones Act, 2005^(Act 28 of 2005),^forthwith.

¶62

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶63

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^{stated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High^{Court tnay be pleased to direct} the Respondents 3 to 7 herein to^{release the consignm,-'ntsby consideringthe} original bills^produced by the Petitioner^{and revaluate the goods to release,} covered under Bill of Entry No.6213616, dated^{02.05.2018,in termsof Section} 27(7\ of The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005^{(Act 28} of^{2005), pending} disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶64

Counsel for the PetitioneT: SRI K.R.SASIDHARAN^{NAIR FORSRI KUTURU} RAVINDER REDDY PRATAP REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 TO 7:^{SRI DOMINICFERNANDES, Senior} standing counsel for CBIG Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR,^Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.8: -

¶65

The Court made the following: COMMON^ORDER

¶66

THE HON'BLE THEACTING CIIIEF JUSTICD^{SUJOY PAUL} AND THE HOIY'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RT![UI(A^YARA

¶67

UIRIT PETITIOil Nos.465, 481 and 53Q of^2O25

¶68

COMMON ORDER:^(Per tle^{Hon'ble the Adirq CNefJustie:;uhg Paul)}

¶69

Sri K. R. Sasidharan Nair, learned counsel^representing Sri Kuthuru Ravinder Reddy, learned^{counsel lbr the petitioner} and Sri Dominic Fernandes,^{learned SeniorStan.dingCounsel for} CBIC for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to^7.

¶70

Regard being had to the similitude of^{the qrtestions involved,} on the joint request, these matters^{were analogouslyheardon} admission.

¶71

The facts are taken from^{W.P.No.465 of 2025. In this} petition, the challenge is mounted to the^{appe.llateorcier dated} 26.06.2024,^u'hereby the Order-in-Original^{No.6ri of 20 19, dated} 05.09.20 1 9 was affirmed.

¶72

Learnecl counsel for the petitioner submits^{that although} there exists a statutory alternative^{remedyuncler the Customs} Act, 1962, to prefer an appeal before^{the Tribun,al, in view of the} judgment of the Supreme Court reported 1n Whirlp/ool

¶73

¶74

Corporatioa v. Registrar of Trade^{Marks, Mumbail,the Writ} Petition is very much maintainable, more so, when^{principles of} natural^justice were grossly violated.

¶75

karned Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that^the petitioner has an effrcacious statutory alternative remedy.^He further submits that these petitions have not^{been frled within the} statutory time limit prescribed to approach the Tribunal^and therefore, in the light of the^judgment of the Supreme Courtⁱⁿ Assistant Commissioner (CTl LTU' Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith

¶76

Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd.z, the Writ^{Petitionscan'notbe} entertained.

¶77

Heard the parties at length.

¶78

7 . This is not in dispute that the petitioner had a^statutory efficacious alternative remedy to^assail the^{appellate order dated} 26.06.2024 before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for^the petitioner by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in WLirlpool Corporation (supra) submits that if^the

¶79

I (1998) 8 SCC I , l2o2ol t9 scc 681

¶80

¶81

¶82

are violated, the^{Writ Pelitionis} principles of^{natural justice} maintainable.

¶83

8.Inourconsideredopinion,therecannotbeanyquarrelon the question^{of 'maintainability' of the petition''Ihe differenceof} 'maintainability'^{and 'entertainability' is consider'zd in extersoby} the Supreme^{Court rn the case M/s' Gci&eJ Sara Lee Ltd' v'} E:rcise and^{Taxation Olfrcer -cum -Assess'ingAuthority3 '} Every petition,^{whichis maintainable'as a cornpulsion' is not} required to^{be entertained'The singular argumentadvanced by} the learned^{counsel for the petitionerto entertain these pdtions} is that the^{principtes of natural justice were breac"hed and thus' in} view of the^{judgmentof the Supreme Corut inWhirlpool} Corporation^{(supra), these petitions can be entertained'}

¶84

The^judgment ln Whirlpoot Corlrcration^(suPra) was subsequentlY^{considered bY theSupremeCourt in U.P' State} Spinning^{Co. Ltd. v. R.S' Pande5f and it was held as under:-}

¶85

" 17 . . .. But normally, the^{High Court} 'should^not entertain^{writ petitions unless it is shown that there is} ,ometiri.tg^{moie in a case, somethinggoing to the.root} "i'iit"^{t"ii"aictionof the officer, sometlLingwhich} would shou'^{that itwould be a case c'f palpable}

¶86

)

¶87

r (2023) I SCC 443 '^{(2o05) 8 scc 261}

¶88

¶89

injustice to the writ petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies provided by the statute...."

¶90

In the aforesajd judgment, the previous judgment was distinguished and it was made clear that mere breach of principles of natural justice will not be sufficient to entertain a petition, Something more must be established which goes to the root of the matter or assails the question of competence of the authority itself. The petitioner has raised no argument about the competence of any authority. karned counsel for the petitioner also could not point out that if the petitioner would have availed the remedy before the Tribunal, it wor:-ld have caused any palpa{e injustice to the petitioner.

¶91

1 l. Recently, the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 1O.O4.2O24 in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Banks, disapproved the order of Telangana High Court in W.P.No.5275 of 2021, dated 04.02.2022, wherein a Division Bench of this Court entertained a Writ Petition, despite availability of alternative remedy. The Supreme Court opined that merely because a petition is maintainable, it is not necessary to entertain

'(202r)⁴ Sr.R.^54r

t I

I I

a petition. It is the discretion^{of the Court to entertain a petition}

¶97

and not a compulsion. The relevant^{paragraphreadsas under:}

¶98

" 1 5. It could thus be seen that, this 'lourt^has clearly held that the High^Court will ordinarily^not entertain a petition under Article²²⁶ of^the Constitution if an effective^{remedy is available to} the aggrieved Person. It^{has beenheld that this} rule applies with^{greater rigour lnmatters} involving recoYery of texes,^{cess. fees, othertypes} of public rnoney and the^ducs of^{bankr and other} frnancial institutious. The Court^{clearly observed} that, white dealing with the^{petitions involving} challenge to the action taken^{for recoveryof the public .} dues, etc., the High Court^{must keep in mind that the} legislations enacted by Parliament^andState Legislatures for recovery of such^{dues are a codeunto} themselves inasmuch as they not^{onllr contain} comprehensive^{procedure for recoveryof tht: dues but 'r} also envisage constitution of^{quasi-judicialbodies for} redressal of the grievance of aly^{aggrievedperson.It} has been held that, though^{the powers} of^{the High} Court under Article 226 of the^{Constitutionare of} widest amplitu<le, still the Courts cannot^{bt: oblivious} of the rules of self-imposed^{restraintevolvedby this} Court- The Court further held^{that thoughtJ:e rule of} exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule^qf discretion and not one of comoulsion.^sHll it^is difiicult to fathom any reeaon why^{the High Court} should entertain a petition filed^{uader Article226} of the Constitution."

¶99

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶100

Thus, mere violation of^{principlesof natural justicecannot}

¶101

be a ground to entertain a Petition

¶102

¶103

In view of^{availability ofalternative remedy, the Writ} Petitions are not^{entertainedand accordingly,disposedof'The}

¶104

petitioner may avail^{the alternativeremedy. No order as to costs'}

¶105

Miscellaneous^{petitions pending, il any, shall standclosed'}

¶106

SD/^. P. PADMANABHA^REDDY ASS T T REGISTRAR

¶107

//TRUE COPY//

¶108

S CTION^OFFICER

¶109

to ,. ,n" Directorate General of Goods and Services.Tax' (DGGST)' Ministry of FinanceDepartment,ir-ii""""'Jlin-rFi''llII^L'TdlephoneExchanse' blrtiii;il^{5' -dr',iraii camaPlace, New Delhi - 1 10066'}

¶110

2 The Secretary,^{unron'oii"i[,'rtili"ittlof Cornmerce andlndustry'New Delhi'} 5.ili?:fu r']:Hti?1":,1"1{^"""'11',lgtff ffi#'iJx'331'no#o'nn ivJerabad-500004,^{TelanoanaState'}

¶111

+. rtE?i;Eipr"r^{c"#i!!i;liE';iC;E"t'GSr Bhavan' L'B stadium Road'}

¶112

e';ii""ibisn, Hvderabad-500004' TelanganaState'

¶113

1. rhe^{Add ition,I co*,.'ii!!io iJi"iitit#t]} -t1yqe.ra^{badG STB hava n' L' B} " iftffi ii;ad, basheerbas, Hvderabad-5000-04

¶114

6 The Deputv^{corn.i,tiE'n""?qiiii'c.;!"i";;Depot' container corporatlonor}

¶115

,f.':'#fl 1;:i;,:H'JJitghll',s3lto""#;"uo-nof .rndiaLimited,(A

¶116

'33gL:,u5,H,on""1',#in:1ltr"mi'Hlixg'a'ii1tooo,,o"' Hvderabad^{- 500018}

¶117

a TtE"o!rEl"pmlni^{c-ommissiner' DeputyD-evelopmentCommissiner'} visakhapatnam^{sp""iuiEl"""'ii 2bne'-suo omce5th Floor'Parisrama} B;-;;;;'B;th-^{e5sh'Ivo;"bad- 50000-4' Telanoana State'}

¶118