POLLUCON TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
WPMB/615/2025 · 2026-02-12
Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, Subhash Upadhyay
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 61 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 61 (UTT) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:UHC:856-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY 12TH FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 615 OF 2025 Pollucon Technologies Ltd.
…...Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarkhand & others
….Respondents.
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Kadian, learned counsel through video conferencing. Counsel for the State : Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder. Counsel for State of U.P. : Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
JUDGMENT :(per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
1.
The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders dated 31.05.2023 and 12.04.2023 and letter dated 24.06.2025, issued by the State Tax Officer and Additional District Magistrate, Garhwal respectively, whereunder the petitioner is liable to pay taxes to the State.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not dispute its liabilities, but it had deposited the amounts before the State of Uttar Pradesh. He places reliance on Paragraph Nos.11 and 12 of the writ petition in support of his submission.
3.
In Paragraph Nos.14 and 15 of the counter- affidavit filed by the Department, the stand of the petitioner that the petitioner had deposited the amount before the 1
2026:UHC:856-DB State of Uttar Pradesh has been denied only for want of knowledge.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would apply for refund of the amount deposited in the State of Uttar Pradesh and would deposit the same before the State of Uttarakhand and for the said purpose, he requires at least eight weeks’ time.
5.
Having regard to the said prayer, we dispose of the instant writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate application, as may be advised for refund.
6.
Subject to the petitioner furnishing security by way of bank guarantee for half of the amount demanded by the impugned orders, the recovery in pursuance thereof shall remain in abeyance for a period of eight weeks.
7.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dated: 12th February, 2026 NISHANT 2