Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18458-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3198 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Tata Steel Limited Thr.Authorized Signatory Shri Mukesh Kapoor Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Mohan,Anupam Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Dipak Seth,Sanjeev Singh Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. Shri Paavan Awasthi, Advocate has filed his memo of appearance on behalf of the opposite party no. 6. The same is taken on record. Shri Anindya Shastri, Advocate has filed his memo of appearance on behalf of the opposite party no. 7. The same is also taken on record. Heard Shri Aditya Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, Shri Paavan Awasthi, learned counsel for opposite party no. 6 and Shri Anindya Shastri, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties what comes out is that certain goods belonging to M/s Tata Steel Limited Jamshedpur unit were being transported to its unit at Chandigarh. The goods were in the form of Iron TMT Bar. They were intercepted during transit at Lucknow. Certain proceedings took place. Ultimately, in terms of orders of Hon'ble the Supreme Court a demand of Rs.6,98,200/- was raised on 31.01.2025, in pursuance to which a Bank Guarantee was furnished by the petitioner, however, a notice was given by the opposite party no. 3 to the opposite party no. 5 for encashing the bank guarantee on the ground that the same had not been furnished in the name of the Truck Driver, as claimed by the petitioner. On the very next date i.e. 27.03.2025 the due amount was paid by the petitioner by an online transaction, however, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State says that the transaction was made with reference to different TIN number i.e. a TIN number different to that of the petitioner's unit at Jamshedpur. On being confronted, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was paid from the funds of M/s Tata Steel Limited, Kanpur unit instead of Jameshedpur Unit. He, however, submitted that they are ready to pay the same amount with reference to the TIN number of the petitioner's Jamshedpur Unit at the earliest but the money already deposited be refunded to the petitioner's unit at Kanpur. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State has no objection in this regard. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 5 Sri Sanjeev Singh says that the request of the opposite party no. 3 for encashment of bank guarantee has been rejected by the latter. In view of the aforesaid this writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:- The petitioner shall deposit the due amount Rs.6,98,200/- within a period of one week from today with reference to the TIN number of M/s Tata Steel Limited Jamshedpur Unit. On such deposit, the opposite party no. 3 shall refund the amount earlier deposited on 27.03.2025 from the petitioner's Kanpur Unit, within next one week. Consequences shall follow accordingly, meaning thereby, once the money is deposited to the satisfaction of the opposite party no. 3 the bank guarantee shall be released accordingly by the official opposite parties within one week of deposit of such amount. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of. . (Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 2.4.2025 R.K.P. Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench