CWP-5527 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT M/s Corning Technologies Commissioner of CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. for the Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents. DEEPAK SIBAL Through this petition 29.11.2024 through which the petitioner has been assessed to tax period July 2017 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties record, the undisputed facts which have emerged are that on the facts, on the impugned order dated of refunds through different orders dated 13.03.2019, 10.10.2019 and 09.09.2020 November 2017, December 2017 respectively. 3. It is further not denied by that on the same set of facts for which the petitioner has been taxed through the impugned orde 5527 of 2025 (O&M) Sr. No.135 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-5527 of 2025 Date of Decision : M/s Corning Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Deepak Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Sr. Standing Counsel or the respondents. *** DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) Through this petition, the petitioner 29.11.2024 through which the petitioner has been assessed to tax 17-March 2023. After hearing learned counsel for the parties , the undisputed facts which have emerged are that on the basis whereof the petitioner has been taxed through the impugned order dated 29.11.2024, the petitioner through different orders passed by the respondent authorities dated 13.03.2019, 10.10.2019 and 09.09.2020 November 2017, December 2017-February 2018 and March 2018 It is further not denied by learned counsel for that on the same set of facts for which the petitioner has been taxed through the impugned order, there were two assessment orders IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 5527 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 13.05.2026 …Petitioner Central Goods and Service Tax and others …Respondents DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Sr. Standing Counsel , the petitioner has challenged order dated 29.11.2024 through which the petitioner has been assessed to tax for the After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the , the undisputed facts which have emerged are that on the same set of basis whereof the petitioner has been taxed through the , the petitioner had been ordered release passed by the respondent authorities dated 13.03.2019, 10.10.2019 and 09.09.2020 pertaining to the tax period February 2018 and March 2018, learned counsel for the respondents that on the same set of facts for which the petitioner has been taxed through two assessment orders passed against the VANDANA 2026.05.19 09:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5527 of 2025 petitioner pertaining to J against which appellate authority respectively, which orders of the appellate authority have also been complied with by the respondents. 4. In light of the above, impugned order dated 29.11.2024 2023, the petitioner forthcoming from facts or in law the period July 2017 respondent-revenue has treating the petitioner as an exporter and that in compliance w orders, for the have also been released. Therefore, finding the impugned action to be discriminatory, we u 29.11.2024, with 5. Disposed of. May 13, 2026 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable 5527 of 2025 (O&M) petitioner pertaining to January 2022-June 202 the petitioner had filed appeals appellate authority through orders dated 22.07.2025 which orders of the appellate authority have also been complied with by the respondents. In light of the above, there is no reason as impugned order dated 29.11.2024, for the tax petitioner should be taxed especially when forthcoming from the side of the respondents to distinguish the law with regard to the rendering of July 2017–March 2023 and the revenue has ordered the issuance of refunds to the petitioner by treating the petitioner as an exporter and that in compliance w orders, for the other tax periods, passed in the petitioner’s favour have also been released. Therefore, finding the impugned action to be discriminatory, we unhesitantly quash the impugned order dated with all consequential reliefs. Disposed of. (DEEPAK SIBAL JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE , 2026 ther speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No June 2022 and July 2022-March 2023 which were accepted by the through orders dated 22.07.2025 and 02.09.2025 which orders of the appellate authority have also been there is no reason as to why, through the tax period July 2017–March especially when no reason is side of the respondents to distinguish the issue on with regard to the rendering of services by the petitioner for the tax periods for which the ordered the issuance of refunds to the petitioner by treating the petitioner as an exporter and that in compliance with the refund tax periods, passed in the petitioner’s favour, refunds have also been released. Therefore, finding the impugned action to be quash the impugned order dated DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2026.05.19 09:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document