Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

FRICK INDIA LTD. AND ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Decided
13 May 1994
Judges listed
M.N. VENKATACHALIAH (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Case Allowed

Citations

Official
[1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 134 · 1994 INSC 210

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

AHMADI, J. In view of the decision rendered by the Constitution Benchin/.K Synthetics Ltd v. The Commercial Taxes Officer(CivilAppeal Nos. 3414-16/82, decided on May 9, 1994), since the relevant provisions of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act are analogous to those of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, this plllitiqn must also succeed. We, therefore, allow this B petition and direct that the amount of interest levied and collected from the petitioners under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act shall be refunded to the petitioners within three months from today with interest at 12% per annum from the date of actual recovery till refund. There will, however, be no order as to costs in the facts C and circumstances of the case. CMP will also stand disposed of. R.P. Petition allowed.

p. 135