{"id":102541,"date":"2006-04-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-04-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponni-sago-factory-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-13-april-2006"},"modified":"2018-04-29T01:13:32","modified_gmt":"2018-04-28T19:43:32","slug":"ponni-sago-factory-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-13-april-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponni-sago-factory-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-13-april-2006","title":{"rendered":"Ponni Sago Factory vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 13 April, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ponni Sago Factory vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 13 April, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated:  13\/04\/2006\n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr.  JUSTICE K.MOHAN RAM     \n\nWP.No.35348 of 2004  \nand \nWP.No.32093 of 2004  \n32094, 32095, 32096, 32097, 33789  \n32098, 32099, 32100 of 2004, \n11774, 25955, 25956, 25957, 30385  \n30386, 1954, 28442, 28443, 28444 \n 28445, 28446, 28447, 28448, 28449 \n28450, 23048, 30678, 33008, 33009, \n33010, 31802 and 31803 of 2005 \nand \n328, 329, 330, 1355, 3375, 3376,\n4417, 4981, 8523 of 2006\nand Connected pending WPMPs.    \n\nW.P.No.35348 of 2004  \n\nPonni Sago Factory \n169\/56 Omalur Main Road  \nJagir Ammapalayam,  \nSalem - 636 302.                                        ....  Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.  The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer\n    Suramangalam Circle\n    Salem.\n\n2. The Salem Starch and Sago  \n      Manufacturers Service Industrial\n        Co-operative Society Limited,\n    Omalur Main Road, Salem - 636 302. \n\n3. The State of Tamil Nadu\n    Rep. by the Secretary to Government,\n    Department of Commercial Taxes, \n      and Religious Endowments,\n    Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.                 ....  Respondents<\/pre>\n<p>For Petitioners in all WPs:  Mr.  N.Prasad.\n<\/p>\n<p>For Respondents in all WPs:  Mr.S.Manohar Sundaram,<br \/>\n                             Government Advocate (Taxes).\n<\/p>\n<p>:C O M M O N O R D E R   <\/p>\n<p>        In these batch of writ  petitions  the  assessment  orders  \/  revised<br \/>\nassessment  orders  passed  by  the  respective  assessment officers have been<br \/>\nchallenged on the following grounds:\n<\/p>\n<p>        a) The order of the first  respondent  is  arbitrary,  irrational  and<br \/>\nviolative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India;\n<\/p>\n<p>        b) The impugned assessment is a mala fide exercise of power lacking in<br \/>\nbanafides   for   the   collateral   purpose   of  raising  an  arbitrary  and<br \/>\ndisproportionate liability to hurt the petitioners;\n<\/p>\n<p>        c) The condition precedent for the exercise of power under  Section  1<br \/>\n2(2)  is  incorrectness  and  incompleteness  of  the  return submitted by the<br \/>\nassessee and for this purpose  no  objective  facts  have  been  examined  and<br \/>\nevidence established.  There is no finding of even a single proved purchase or<br \/>\nsales omission.    The  records  maintained  in  the course of business of the<br \/>\npetitioners have not been shown to the unworthy of acceptance.\n<\/p>\n<p>        d) The  flat  rate  assessment  by  arbitrarily  adopting  an  alleged<br \/>\nconsumption  of  5  units  for  sago  and  6  units  for  starch as the energy<br \/>\nconsumption has no independent or authentic support, nor  established  by  any<br \/>\nproven methodology adopted in the trade.\n<\/p>\n<p>        e)  The  first  respondent  cannot  adopt  a flat rate method for best<br \/>\njudgment assessment ignoring the special features of each assessee,  like  the<br \/>\npower  consumption,  the load connected, the horse power employed, the machine<br \/>\ndriven operation as  against  manual  operation,  the  age  of  the  machinery<br \/>\nincluding  the  diverse  sequence  of  operations  submitted  before the first<br \/>\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>        f) The electricity consumption by itself cannot be the basis  for  the<br \/>\nbest  of  judgment assessment and on the authority of the ruling of this Court<br \/>\nin 32 STC 542 (Kalyani Oil Mills Vs.  State of Madras) and that of  the  other<br \/>\nHigh  Courts,  the  impugned demand is arbitrary and the resultant figures are<br \/>\nequally perverse.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  There is no  dispute  that  the  petitioners  in  all  these  writ<br \/>\npetitions  are  running  small  scale  units  for  the manufacture of sago and<br \/>\nstarch, and are registered dealers under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act,<br \/>\n1959 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 with the  first  respondent  \/  assessing<br \/>\nofficer.   For the manufacture of sago, the principal raw material is tuber of<br \/>\nsago.  These are  purchased  from  agriculturists  in  and  around  Salem  and<br \/>\nDharmapuri Districts.   The petitioners have been selling their goods to Salem<br \/>\nStarch and Sago Manufacturers Service Industrial Co-operative Society  Limited<br \/>\n(hereinafter referred to as the &#8220;Sago Serve&#8221;).\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  It is the contention of the petitioners that it was alleged in the<br \/>\nmeeting  held  on  22.07.2004 the manufacturers were supplying sago to traders<br \/>\nand not to the Sago Serve, resulting in loss of revenue and that demands  will<br \/>\nbe  raised based on electricity consumption and on the basis of octroi details<br \/>\nin Maharashtra.  It is the contention of the  petitioners  that  there  is  no<br \/>\nevidence to show that the petitioners had effected sales within or outside the<br \/>\nState without payment of tax.  According to the petitioners, in the above said<br \/>\nbackground, the Commercial Tax Department have been required to issue the best<br \/>\nof judgment  demands  on  a flat rate basis of electricity consumption.  It is<br \/>\nthe allegation of the  petitioners  that  demands  are  being  raised  at  the<br \/>\ninstance  of  the  Sago  Serve  for  promoting  its  affairs and brow beat the<br \/>\ninnocent small scale units and not for any  bonafide  purpose.    The  further<br \/>\nallegation  of the petitioners is that the Sales Tax Department is employed to<br \/>\ncreate monopoly of procurement for the sago serve  as  self-evident  from  the<br \/>\ncirculars of the Sago Serve.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  It is the case of the petitioners that they maintain regular books<br \/>\nof accounts  and  all  purchases are supported by vouchers.  All the sales are<br \/>\nsupported by invoices and deliveries are under  statutory  way  bill  and  the<br \/>\npetitioners effected local sales to buyers with invoices and charge sales tax.<br \/>\nFurther  the  petitioners  effect  sales  through  agents,  who are registered<br \/>\ndealers.  According to the petitioners, the sales are faithfully reported  and<br \/>\ntax paid.    Transport of the goods is under the cover of documents prescribed<br \/>\nunder Section 44 of the Act.  No sales or purchase is outside  the  record  of<br \/>\nthe  assessee  and  no adverse remarks or record have been established against<br \/>\nthe petitioners either during the inspection or from the check-post data.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  While so, it is the further case of the petitioners that  suddenly<br \/>\nthe  petitioners were served with a show cause notice purporting to revise the<br \/>\nearlier notice.  In the said show cause notice it was alleged that  the  books<br \/>\nwere  rejected, because the electricity consumption showed excess consumption.<br \/>\nThe first respondent alleged that one bag of sago would  consume  6  units  of<br \/>\nelectricity,   and  one  bag  of  starch  consume  5  units,  and  accordingly<br \/>\nelectricity consumption was taken and huge proposal was  issued.    Similarly,<br \/>\nnotices  were  issued  to  various  dealers like the petitioners herein in the<br \/>\nmonths of August\/ September 2004 by the Commercial Tax Authorities  in  Salem,<br \/>\nAthur, Namakkal,  Rasipuram  and  Aroor  Divisions.    The  petitioners herein<br \/>\nbrought to the notice of the Principal Commissioner through their  Association<br \/>\n(  TASMA)  on  16.09.2004  and  reminders dated 07.10.2004 were also sent, but<br \/>\nthere was no response.  It is the case of  the  petitioners  that  they  filed<br \/>\ntheir  objections  to  the show cause notice and was served with the notice of<br \/>\nimpugned assessment.  By the impugned assessment, the flat rate of electricity<br \/>\nconsumption has been adopted and  it  has  been  arbitrarily  stated  (without<br \/>\ncalling  for  the  books of account) that the petitioners and similarly placed<br \/>\nassessees had not furnished documentary evidence or qualitative  details  with<br \/>\ngate pass  copies.    The best of judgment based on electricity consumption on<br \/>\ngeneralised basis, according to the petitioners, is not a honest guess work.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  The  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioners  submitted  that  the<br \/>\nimpugned  assessment  orders are contrary to the law laid down by the Division<br \/>\nBench of this Honourable Court in the case of Kalyani Oil Mills Vs.  The State<br \/>\nof Madras, reported in 32 S.T.C.  542 and in the case of Madurai  Soft  Drinks<br \/>\n(Private) Limited Vs.  The State of Tamil Nadu reported in 60 S.T.C.  94.  The<br \/>\nlearned  counsel  for  the  petitioners  submitted  that in the above said two<br \/>\ndecisions the following principles have been laid down:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        i)  The  assessing  authority  should  have  material  to  doubt   the<br \/>\ncorrectness  or  genuineness  of  the  entries  in  the  account  books before<br \/>\nproceeding to make  the  best  judgment  assessment,  taking  the  electricity<br \/>\nconsumption as the basis for making an estimate.\n<\/p>\n<p>        ii) Actual test check should be done in the assessee&#8217;s own factory.\n<\/p>\n<p>        iii)  The assessing authority should gather comparable data from other<br \/>\nsimilar oil mills.\n<\/p>\n<p>        iv) In the absence of actual test check, adopting a particular rate of<br \/>\nconsumption for estimation would be an arbitrary basis and  therefore  a  best<br \/>\njudgment assessment based on such arbitrary figure cannot legally be upheld.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.   On  the  above  said  submissions,  the  learned  counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioners submitted that the best judgment assessments \/ revised  assesments<br \/>\nmade  on the basis of the survey report prepared in the year 1994 based on the<br \/>\nconsumption of electricity alone without looking into the  account  books  are<br \/>\nnothing  but  arbitrary  and  submitted  that the impugned assessment orders \/<br \/>\nrevised assessment orders are liable to be set-aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  Mr.  S.Manohar Sundaram, learned Government Advocate  (Taxes),  on<br \/>\nwritten  instructions  from  the respondents, submitted that though no counter<br \/>\naffidavit has been filed, the above writ petitions may have to be allowed with<br \/>\nsuitable directions to safeguard the interests of the Revenue.  In  fact,  Mr.<br \/>\nS.Manohar  Sundaram  produced  a  letter  from  the Commissioner of Commercial<br \/>\n(Taxes) Chepauk, Chennai &#8211; 5  addressed  to  the  Special  Government  Pleader<br \/>\n(Taxes)  High  Court,  wherein  the Commissioner has given instructions to the<br \/>\nSpecial Government Pleader ( Taxes).  A  perusal  of  the  said  communication<br \/>\nshows  that  the  respondents  are not in a position to sustain the assessment<br \/>\norders \/  revised  assessment  orders  passed  by  the  respective  assessment<br \/>\nofficers.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  Mr.    S.Manohar  Sundaram,  learned  Government  Advocate (Taxes)<br \/>\nsubmitted that in view of the above said law laid down in the two cases by two<br \/>\ndifferent Division Benches of this Court, the impugned proceedings  cannot  be<br \/>\nsustained.  But, further submitted that the assessees without resorting to the<br \/>\nalternative  remedy  available  under the Act have straightaway filed the writ<br \/>\npetitions and hence the writ petitions may not  be  entertained.    But  I  am<br \/>\nunable  to  accept  the said contention of the Government Advocate (Taxes), as<br \/>\nthe impugned proceedings are grossly erroneous and directly  against  the  law<br \/>\nlaid down  by  the  above  said  decisions of this Court.  Therefore, when the<br \/>\nimpugned proceedings are directly against the law laid down by this Court,  it<br \/>\nis  not  just  and  equitable  to direct the assessees to take recourse to the<br \/>\nalternative remedy available under the Act.  The learned  Government  Advocate<br \/>\nalternatively  submits that if this Court is inclined to setaside the impugned<br \/>\nproceedings, liberty may be given to the  assessing  officers  to  pass  fresh<br \/>\nassessment orders  in  accordance  with  law.    The  learned  counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioners has no objection for the same and  in  fact  he  cannot  have  any<br \/>\nobjection for the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.   Accordingly,  applying  the  law laid down by the two Honourable<br \/>\nDivision Benches of this Court in the above said decisions, viz., Kalyani  Oil<br \/>\nMills Vs.   The State of Madras, reported in 32 S.T.C.  542 and in the case of<br \/>\nMadurai Soft Drinks (Private) Limited Vs.  The State of Tamil Nadu reported in<br \/>\n60 S.T.C.  94, the impugned proceedings  are  set-aside.    But  however,  the<br \/>\nrespective assessing officers are at liberty to pass fresh assessment orders \/<br \/>\nrevised  assessment  orders  in  accordance  with  the  law, more particularly<br \/>\napplying the law laid down by this Court in the cases mentioned supra.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.  For the foregoing reasons, the above writ petitions are  allowed.<br \/>\nNo costs.  Consequently, the connected pending WPMPs are closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>srk<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Ponni Sago Factory vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 13 April, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 13\/04\/2006 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. JUSTICE K.MOHAN RAM WP.No.35348 of 2004 and WP.No.32093 of 2004 32094, 32095, 32096, 32097, 33789 32098, 32099, 32100 of 2004, 11774, 25955, 25956, 25957, 30385 [&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-102541","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>Ponni Sago Factory vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 13 April, 2006 - 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\/ponni-sago-factory-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-13-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ponni Sago Factory vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 13 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponni-sago-factory-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-13-april-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-28T19:43:32+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponni-sago-factory-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-13-april-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponni-sago-factory-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-13-april-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ponni Sago Factory vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 13 April, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-28T19:43:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponni-sago-factory-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-13-april-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1651,\"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\\\/ponni-sago-factory-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-13-april-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponni-sago-factory-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-13-april-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponni-sago-factory-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-13-april-2006\",\"name\":\"Ponni Sago Factory vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 13 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-28T19:43:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponni-sago-factory-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-13-april-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponni-sago-factory-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-13-april-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponni-sago-factory-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-13-april-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ponni Sago Factory vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 13 April, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Ponni Sago Factory vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 13 April, 2006 - 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\/ponni-sago-factory-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-13-april-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ponni Sago Factory vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 13 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponni-sago-factory-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-13-april-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-28T19:43:32+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponni-sago-factory-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-13-april-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponni-sago-factory-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-13-april-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ponni Sago Factory vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 13 April, 2006","datePublished":"2006-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-28T19:43:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponni-sago-factory-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-13-april-2006"},"wordCount":1651,"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\/ponni-sago-factory-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-13-april-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponni-sago-factory-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-13-april-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponni-sago-factory-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-13-april-2006","name":"Ponni Sago Factory vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 13 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-28T19:43:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponni-sago-factory-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-13-april-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponni-sago-factory-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-13-april-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponni-sago-factory-vs-the-deputy-commercial-tax-officer-on-13-april-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ponni Sago Factory vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 13 April, 2006"}]},{"@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\/102541","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=102541"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102541\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=102541"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=102541"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=102541"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}