{"id":100878,"date":"2007-09-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-viking-warehousing-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-6-september-2007-2"},"modified":"2017-06-18T22:05:15","modified_gmt":"2017-06-18T16:35:15","slug":"tvl-viking-warehousing-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-6-september-2007-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-viking-warehousing-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-6-september-2007-2","title":{"rendered":"Tvl.Viking Warehousing vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 6 September, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Tvl.Viking Warehousing vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 6 September, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n                              \n                      DATED: 06\/09\/2007\n                              \n                            CORAM\n                              \n            THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN\n                              \n             Writ Petition No.28733 of 2007 \n\t\t\t    and\n                      M.P. No.1 of 2007\n\n\n\n\nTvl.Viking Warehousing\nNo.5\nG.N.T. Road\nMoolakadai\nChennai 600 110\nRep. by its Partner Mr.Yagnesh R.Thakkar  \t..Petitioner.\n\n\t Versus\n                              \nThe Commercial Tax Officer\nManali Assessment Circle\nKuralagam Annexure\nFirst Floor\nChennai 600 018.                \t\t..Respondent.\n\n\n\n\nPrayer: \n\n\tPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution\nof India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to\ncall for the records of the respondent, dated 29.06.2007, in\nCST No.819523\/2003-2004 and quash the same so far it relates\nto  levy of penalty of Rs.75600\/- under Section 12(3)(b)  of\nthe TNGST Act.\n\n\n\n          For petitioner : Mr.N.Muralikumaran for Mc.Gan Law Firm\n\n          For respondent : Mr.R.Mahadevan, Additional Government Pleader\n\n                              \n\n                          O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>      Mr.R.Mahadevan, learned Additional Government Pleader,<\/p>\n<p>takes notice for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>      2.  With the consent of the learned counsels appearing<\/p>\n<p>on  either  side, the writ petition is taken  up  for  final<\/p>\n<p>disposal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>      3.  It is submitted that the petitioner concern is  an<\/p>\n<p>assessee on the file of the respondent both under the  Tamil<\/p>\n<p>Nadu  General Sales Tax Act, 1959, (in Short `the Act&#8217;)  and<\/p>\n<p>the  Central  Sales Tax Act, 1956. For the  assessment  year<\/p>\n<p>2003-2004, the respondent had passed an assessment order, on<\/p>\n<p>10.04.2005, accepting the total taxable turnover reported by<\/p>\n<p>the  petitioner concern and based on the books  of  accounts<\/p>\n<p>submitted  on  its  behalf. However, the respondent  by  its<\/p>\n<p>proceedings,  dated  14.03.2007, in CST.No.819523\/2003-2004,<\/p>\n<p>had  issued a pre-revisional assessment notice holding  that<\/p>\n<p>the  petitioner had leased out the cranes and collected  the<\/p>\n<p>lease charges for which it had to pay sales tax. It has been<\/p>\n<p>further submitted that the petitioner was under the bonafide<\/p>\n<p>impression  that collection of lease charges by leasing  out<\/p>\n<p>cranes would not fall under the ambit and scope of the sales<\/p>\n<p>tax  laws and therefore, it did not pay any tax on the same.<\/p>\n<p>When  it  was pointed out that the petitioner was liable  to<\/p>\n<p>pay  sales tax on the amount collected as lease charges,  it<\/p>\n<p>had  paid  the entire amount of Rs.60,480\/- at  12.6%.  Only<\/p>\n<p>thereafter, the revisional assessment notice had been issued<\/p>\n<p>proposing to revise the turnover of the petitioner  concern.<\/p>\n<p>A  revisional assessment order had been passed on 29.06.2007<\/p>\n<p>revising the turnover of the petitioner. While revising  the<\/p>\n<p>turnover  of the petitioner, the respondent had also  levied<\/p>\n<p>penalty,  under Section 12(3)(b) of the Act. Therefore,  the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner  had  been constrained to file the  present  writ<\/p>\n<p>petition,  under Article 226 of the Constitution  of  India,<\/p>\n<p>challenging  the  impugned order of  the  respondent,  dated<\/p>\n<p>29.06.2007, made in CST.No.819523\/2003-04, stating that  the<\/p>\n<p>said order cannot be sustained in the eye of law.<\/p>\n<p>      4.  It  has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner<\/p>\n<p>that once the tax had been paid, even before the issuance of<\/p>\n<p>the  show cause notice, the respondent does not possess  the<\/p>\n<p>power to levy the penalty. In case of escaped assessment  of<\/p>\n<p>tax,  the  respondent does not possess  the  power  to  levy<\/p>\n<p>penalty, unless it is shown that the non-payment of  tax  is<\/p>\n<p>due  to wilful non-disclosure of the assessable turnover  by<\/p>\n<p>the  dealer.  Unless,  the respondent could  show  that  the<\/p>\n<p>assessee  had wilfully avoided disclosure of the  assessable<\/p>\n<p>turnover  or  avoided the submission of the returns  or  the<\/p>\n<p>payment of tax, the question of levying of penalty does  not<\/p>\n<p>arise.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>     5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had<\/p>\n<p>relied  on  a decision of the Division Bench of  this  Court<\/p>\n<p>made  in  State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Mahalakshmi Textile  Mills<\/p>\n<p>Limited  (1996 100 STC 269), wherein the Division  Bench  by<\/p>\n<p>following the decision rendered in State of Tamil  Nadu  Vs.<\/p>\n<p>Lucky  Rasi Radio House (1996 100 STC 210 (Mad.),  had  held<\/p>\n<p>that   where  the  defects  in  the  original  returns  were<\/p>\n<p>rectified  by  the dealer by filing a revised statement  and<\/p>\n<p>the  tax  due thereunder had been paid before the completion<\/p>\n<p>of  the  assessment, it could not be said that the  original<\/p>\n<p>return was defective so as to attract penalty, under Section<\/p>\n<p>12(5) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.<\/p>\n<p>     6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had<\/p>\n<p>also  relied on a decision of the Apex Court made  in  <a href=\"\/doc\/1614118\/\">Dilip<\/p>\n<p>N.Shroff  V.  Joint Commissioner of Income Tax  and<\/a>  another<\/p>\n<p>(2007  291  ITR 519(SC)), wherein the Supreme  Court,  while<\/p>\n<p>dealing  with  Section 55A and 271(1)(C) of the  Income  Tax<\/p>\n<p>Act,  1961,  had  held that imposition  of  penalty  is  not<\/p>\n<p>automatic.  Levy  of  penalty is not only  discretionary  in<\/p>\n<p>nature  but  such discretion is required to be exercised  on<\/p>\n<p>the  part  of  the  Assessing Officer keeping  the  relevant<\/p>\n<p>factors  in  mind.  Some of those factors apart  from  being<\/p>\n<p>inherent  in the nature of penalty proceedings, as has  been<\/p>\n<p>noticed  in some of the decisions of this court, inheres  on<\/p>\n<p>the  face  of  the statutory provisions. Penalty proceedings<\/p>\n<p>are  not to be initiated, as has been noticed by the Wanchoo<\/p>\n<p>Committee, only to harass the assessee. The approach of  the<\/p>\n<p>Assessing Officer in this behalf must be fair and objective.<\/p>\n<p>The  Supreme Court had further held that for the levying  of<\/p>\n<p>penalty  the  respondent ought to  show  that  there  was  a<\/p>\n<p>deliberate act or omission on the part of the assessee. Such<\/p>\n<p>deliberate act must be either for the purpose of concealment<\/p>\n<p>of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.<\/p>\n<p>      7.  Mr.R.Mahadevan, the learned Additional  Government<\/p>\n<p>Pleader,  appearing  on  behalf of the  respondent  has  not<\/p>\n<p>refuted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner.<\/p>\n<p>      8.  In  view  of the submissions made by  the  learned<\/p>\n<p>counsel appearing for the petitioner and taking note of  the<\/p>\n<p>decisions  referred  to in support of his  contentions,  the<\/p>\n<p>impugned order of the respondent, dated 29.06.2007, made  in<\/p>\n<p>CST.NO.819523\/2003-04, is set aside in so far as it  relates<\/p>\n<p>to  the levying of penalty of Rs.75,600\/- on the petitioner,<\/p>\n<p>under Section 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act,<\/p>\n<p>1959.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>      Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.  No  costs.<\/p>\n<p>Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2007 is closed.<\/p>\n<p>csh<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Commercial Tax Officer<br \/>\nManali Assessment Circle<br \/>\nKuralagam Annexure<br \/>\nFirst Floor<br \/>\nChennai 600 018.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Tvl.Viking Warehousing vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 6 September, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06\/09\/2007 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.28733 of 2007 and M.P. No.1 of 2007 Tvl.Viking Warehousing No.5 G.N.T. Road Moolakadai Chennai 600 110 Rep. by its Partner Mr.Yagnesh R.Thakkar ..Petitioner. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-100878","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Tvl.Viking Warehousing vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 6 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-viking-warehousing-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-6-september-2007-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tvl.Viking Warehousing vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 6 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-viking-warehousing-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-6-september-2007-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-18T16:35:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-viking-warehousing-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-6-september-2007-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-viking-warehousing-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-6-september-2007-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tvl.Viking Warehousing vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 6 September, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-18T16:35:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-viking-warehousing-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-6-september-2007-2\"},\"wordCount\":886,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-viking-warehousing-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-6-september-2007-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-viking-warehousing-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-6-september-2007-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-viking-warehousing-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-6-september-2007-2\",\"name\":\"Tvl.Viking Warehousing vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 6 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-18T16:35:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-viking-warehousing-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-6-september-2007-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-viking-warehousing-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-6-september-2007-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-viking-warehousing-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-6-september-2007-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tvl.Viking Warehousing vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 6 September, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Tvl.Viking Warehousing vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 6 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-viking-warehousing-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-6-september-2007-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tvl.Viking Warehousing vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 6 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-viking-warehousing-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-6-september-2007-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-18T16:35:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-viking-warehousing-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-6-september-2007-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-viking-warehousing-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-6-september-2007-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tvl.Viking Warehousing vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 6 September, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-18T16:35:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-viking-warehousing-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-6-september-2007-2"},"wordCount":886,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-viking-warehousing-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-6-september-2007-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-viking-warehousing-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-6-september-2007-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-viking-warehousing-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-6-september-2007-2","name":"Tvl.Viking Warehousing vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 6 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-18T16:35:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-viking-warehousing-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-6-september-2007-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-viking-warehousing-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-6-september-2007-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-viking-warehousing-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-6-september-2007-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tvl.Viking Warehousing vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 6 September, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100878","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=100878"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100878\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=100878"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=100878"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=100878"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}