{"id":103575,"date":"2010-03-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-bochasanwasi-on-10-march-2010"},"modified":"2017-01-16T14:02:09","modified_gmt":"2017-01-16T08:32:09","slug":"commissioner-vs-bochasanwasi-on-10-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-bochasanwasi-on-10-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs Bochasanwasi on 10 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner vs Bochasanwasi on 10 March, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: D.A.Mehta,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/218\/2009\t 8\/ 8\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 218 of 2009\n \n\n \n \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER\nOF CUSTOMS - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nBOCHASANWASI\nAKSHAR PURSHOTTAM SWAMINARAYAN SANSTHA (BAPS) - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMS\nAMEE YAJNIK for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nNone for Opponent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 10\/03\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI)<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tthis appeal under section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act),<br \/>\n\tthe appellant revenue has challenged order dated 19.8.2008 passed by<br \/>\n\tthe Customs, Excise &amp; Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the<br \/>\n\tTribunal) proposing the following questions stated to be substantial<br \/>\n\tquestions of law:\n<\/p>\n<p> [1]\tWhether<br \/>\nthe Hon&#8217;ble CESTAT&#8217;s order whereby only one of the components of the<br \/>\nAssessable Value namely FOB was decided, but remaining components of<br \/>\nAssessable Value namely Freight and Insurance were not decided and<br \/>\nthe case was remanded for re-determination of value and duty, can be<br \/>\ntermed as final order?\n<\/p>\n<p>[2]\tWhether<br \/>\ninterest liability arises from the date of the said order of the<br \/>\nHon&#8217;ble CESTAT whereby the case was remanded for re-determination of<br \/>\nvalue and duty or from the date of order finalizing assessment<br \/>\nwhereby value and duty have been finally assessed by considering the<br \/>\ndirections of the Hon&#8217;ble CESTAT?\n<\/p>\n<p>[3]\tWhether,<br \/>\nin the normal course, pre-deposit should be refunded as soon as the<br \/>\nTribunal&#8217;s order is passed by finalizing the assessment as the same<br \/>\nassessment was finalized by order of the Deputy Commissioner on<br \/>\n21.06.2007 and refund was given before that order?\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tfacts of the case are that there was a valuation dispute for the<br \/>\n\tpurpose of levy of duty on import of marble blocks of Italian<br \/>\n\torigin, imported by the respondent. The value declared in the<br \/>\n\tinvoices and on the Bill of Entry was US $ 85 PMT, whereas the<br \/>\n\tDeputy Commissioner ICD\/CFS, Sabarmati, determined the value of the<br \/>\n\tgoods at US $ 300 PMT and worked out and confirmed total duty<br \/>\n\tamounting to Rs.8,36,46,140\/-. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs<br \/>\n\tdirected the respondent-importer to pay the differential duty after<br \/>\n\thaving adjusted the amount already paid as provisional duty. The<br \/>\n\trespondent preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who<br \/>\n\tgranted stay vide order dated 23.12.2004 and directed the respondent<br \/>\n\tto pay Rs.1.25 crore by way of pre-deposit as a condition precedent<br \/>\n\tfor hearing the appeal on merits. The respondent deposited Rs.25<br \/>\n\tlakh vide challans dated 38.3.2005 and furnished a Bank Guarantee<br \/>\n\tdated 19.04.2005 for the remaining amount of Rs.1 crore. The<br \/>\n\trespondent s appeal came to be dismissed vide order-in-appeal<br \/>\n\tdated 29.06.2005 and the Bank Guarantee of Rs.1 crore came to be<br \/>\n\tencashed.  Against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) the<br \/>\n\trespondent preferred second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal<br \/>\n\tvide order dated 3rd January 2006 ordered assessment of<br \/>\n\tthe consignment at the rate of US $ 95 PMT (FOB) plus freight and<br \/>\n\tinsurance and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for<br \/>\n\tre-determination of value and duty in terms of its order. The<br \/>\n\trevenue carried the matter in appeal before the Supreme Court, which<br \/>\n\tcame to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 12th<br \/>\n\tNovember 2006.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\trespondent vide letter dated 1st December, 2006 requested<br \/>\n\tfor refund of Rs.1.25 crores deposited\/recovered from it along with<br \/>\n\tinterest. The Deputy Commissioner sanctioned the refund, but<br \/>\n\trejected the request for the interest accrued thereon. The<br \/>\n\trespondent carried the matter in appeal before Commissioner<br \/>\n\t(Appeals) and succeeded.  The revenue challenged the decision of<br \/>\n\tCommissioner (Appeals) before the Tribunal, which came to be<br \/>\n\tdismissed by the impugned order dated 19.8.2008.\n<\/p>\n<p>Assailing<br \/>\n\tthe impugned order of the Tribunal, Ms. Amee Yajnik, learned Senior<br \/>\n\tStanding Counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that both<br \/>\n\tCommissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal had erred in holding<br \/>\n\tthat the respondent assessee would be entitled to interest on refund<br \/>\n\tof pre-deposit of Rs.1.25 crores from the first day subsequent to<br \/>\n\tthree months of passing of the order of the Tribunal. It was<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that the Tribunal had ordered assessment of the<br \/>\n\tconsignment at the price of US $ 95 PMT (FOB) plus freight and<br \/>\n\tinsurance as per actuals to be made available by the respondent<br \/>\n\tfailing which the standard rate prescribed in the rules for freight<br \/>\n\tand insurance would be applicable. That the Tribunal had decided the<br \/>\n\trate of one of the components of the assessable value, viz., FOB,<br \/>\n\tbut the remaining components of assessable value viz. freight and<br \/>\n\tinsurance were still undecided. It was for this reason that the<br \/>\n\tTribunal had remanded the matter for re-determination of value and<br \/>\n\tduty, hence, it cannot be said that the order made by the Tribunal<br \/>\n\tremanding the case for re-determination had attained finality.<br \/>\n\tAccording to the appellant, as the Tribunal had remanded the case,<br \/>\n\tthe assessment remained provisional and was finalized only by the<br \/>\n\torder-in-original dated 21.06.2007 and as such liability to pay<br \/>\n\tinterest would arise only after re-determination of the value and<br \/>\n\tduty by the adjudicating authority in terms of the order of Tribunal<br \/>\n\tand not from the date of the order of Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>From<br \/>\n\tthe facts emerging on record, the entitlement of the respondent to<br \/>\n\trefund of the amount of Rs.1.25 crore is not in dispute and<br \/>\n\taccordingly the Deputy Commissioner has vide the order-in-original<br \/>\n\tdated 22.12.2007 himself sanctioned the refund. However, the claim<br \/>\n\tfor interest on delayed refund had been turned down on the ground<br \/>\n\tthat the claim did not fall within the purview of section 27 of the<br \/>\n\tAct. The Commissioner (Appeals) placed reliance on the decisions of<br \/>\n\tthe Supreme Court cited by the respondent in Union of India<br \/>\n\tv. Sandvik Asia Ltd., 2006 (196) ELT 257, Mahavir<br \/>\n\tAluminium Ltd. v. CCE, 1999 (114) ELT 371 and  M\/s<br \/>\n\tTATA SSL Ltd., 2007 (218) ELT 493 for the proposition that<br \/>\n\tinterest should be paid from the first day subsequent to three<br \/>\n\tmonths of the passing of the order, which was also borne out from<br \/>\n\tthe relevant CBEC Circulars and accordingly upheld the contention of<br \/>\n\tthe respondent and allowed the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tthe impugned order, The Tribunal after considering the submissions<br \/>\n\tadvanced by both the sides has held thus:\n<\/p>\n<p> It<br \/>\nis seen that the Central Board of Excise &amp; Customs in their<br \/>\nCirculars dated 2.1.2002 and 8.12.2004 has clearly directed that<br \/>\ninterest should be paid on pre-deposits. The dispute is as to whether<br \/>\nthe decision of the CESTAT remanding the matter finalizing the issue<br \/>\nhas attained and or can it be only said that when the matter was<br \/>\ndecided by the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court rejecting the appeal filed by<br \/>\nthe revenue, the assessment could have been finalized. The order of<br \/>\nthe CESTAT was very clear and there was clear direction that value of<br \/>\nthe marble block imported by the respondents should be assessed at 95<br \/>\n$ per MT and therefore, as argued by the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondents, there was nothing left for decision by the original<br \/>\nauthority except quantification of duty which he has done. Therefore,<br \/>\nin the normal course, if the Revenue had not filed appeal<br \/>\nagainst this order, the pre-deposit was required to be refunded in<br \/>\nview of the fact that Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court had not granted any stay<br \/>\nin this case. In the normal course pre-deposit should be refunded as<br \/>\nsoon as the Tribunal order was passed by finalizing the assessment.<br \/>\nIn the absence of a stay by the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court and the Board&#8217;s<br \/>\ninstruction finalization of assessment and refund was warranted and<br \/>\ntherefore, interest liability arises from the date of the order of<br \/>\nthe Tribunal and not the date of judgment of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme<br \/>\nCourt.  In this view of the matter, we hold that the impugned order<br \/>\nof Commissioner (Appeals) is to be upheld and accordingly, we reject<br \/>\nthe appeal filed by the Revenue against the order.\n<\/p>\n<p>Thus,<br \/>\n\tit is apparent that CBEC Circulars dated 2.1.2002 and<br \/>\n\t8.12.2004 provide for payment of interest on pre-deposits. Hence,<br \/>\n\twithout reference to section 27 or 27A of the Act, interest is<br \/>\n\tpayable on pre-deposit in terms of the aforesaid Circulars. The<br \/>\n\tquestion therefore, is as to the date from which interest liability<br \/>\n\twould arise on delayed payment of refund. It is the case of the<br \/>\n\tRevenue that vide order dated 3.1.2006, the Tribunal had remanded<br \/>\n\tthe case for re-determination of value and duty and thus the case<br \/>\n\thad not attained finality. That after the Supreme Court dismissed<br \/>\n\tthe appeal preferred by the revenue vide order dated 17.11.2006, the<br \/>\n\tassessment was finalized vide order-in-original dated 21.06.2007.<br \/>\n\tAccording to the revenue such liability would arise only from the<br \/>\n\tdate when the assessment was finalized, which according to the<br \/>\n\trevenue is the date when the adjudicating authority finalized the<br \/>\n\tassessment in terms of the order of the Tribunal.  Hence, the<br \/>\n\tliability to pay interest would arise only after the said order. The<br \/>\n\tsubmission of the revenue is fallacious. It is undisputed that no<br \/>\n\tstay had been granted by the Supreme Court against the order of the<br \/>\n\tTribunal. Hence, revenue was bound to implement it immediately and<br \/>\n\tre-determine the value and duty in terms of the said order. However,<br \/>\n\tit appears that revenue granted a stay to itself and did not abide<br \/>\n\tby the order of the Tribunal till more than six months even after<br \/>\n\tthe date of dismissal of its appeal by the Supreme Court. If the<br \/>\n\tsaid contention were accepted, revenue could at its will delay the<br \/>\n\tre-determination of the value and duty in terms of the order of the<br \/>\n\tTribunal and avoid payment of refund as well as interest thereon.<br \/>\n\tIt is well settled that revenue cannot be permitted to take<br \/>\n\tadvantage of its own wrong. Hence, the said contention does not<br \/>\n\tmerit acceptance.\n<\/p>\n<p>Vide<br \/>\n\torder dated 3.1.2006, the Tribunal had finalized the assessment and<br \/>\n\thad directed that the value of the marble blocks imported by the<br \/>\n\trespondent should be assessed at US $ 95 PMT, hence there was<br \/>\n\tnothing left for the original authority to finalize except<br \/>\n\tquantification of duty, which he appears to have done at a belated<br \/>\n\tstage. As per the Board s instructions interest liability arises<br \/>\n\tfrom the date of finalization of assessment. In the present case the<br \/>\n\tassessment came to be finalized by the order dated 3.1.2006 of the<br \/>\n\tTribunal as the said order was not stayed at any point of time and<br \/>\n\tthe appeal against the same came to be dismissed. Hence, liability<br \/>\n\tto pay interest would arise from the date of the order of the<br \/>\n\tTribunal. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the Tribunal<br \/>\n\tconfirming the order made by Commissioner (Appeals) does not suffer<br \/>\n\tfrom any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tabsence of any question of law, much less any substantial question<br \/>\n\tof law, the appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t[D.A.MEHTA,<br \/>\nJ.]<\/p>\n<p>[HARSHA<br \/>\nDEVANI, J.]<\/p>\n<p>parmar*<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Commissioner vs Bochasanwasi on 10 March, 2010 Author: D.A.Mehta,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/218\/2009 8\/ 8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 218 of 2009 ========================================= COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS &#8211; Appellant(s) Versus BOCHASANWASI AKSHAR PURSHOTTAM SWAMINARAYAN SANSTHA (BAPS) &#8211; Opponent(s) ========================================= [&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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-103575","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Commissioner vs Bochasanwasi on 10 March, 2010 - 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\/commissioner-vs-bochasanwasi-on-10-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner vs Bochasanwasi on 10 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-bochasanwasi-on-10-march-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-16T08:32:09+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\\\/commissioner-vs-bochasanwasi-on-10-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-bochasanwasi-on-10-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs Bochasanwasi on 10 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-16T08:32:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-bochasanwasi-on-10-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1715,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-bochasanwasi-on-10-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-bochasanwasi-on-10-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-bochasanwasi-on-10-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Bochasanwasi on 10 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-16T08:32:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-bochasanwasi-on-10-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-bochasanwasi-on-10-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-bochasanwasi-on-10-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Bochasanwasi on 10 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Commissioner vs Bochasanwasi on 10 March, 2010 - 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\/commissioner-vs-bochasanwasi-on-10-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs Bochasanwasi on 10 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-bochasanwasi-on-10-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-16T08:32:09+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\/commissioner-vs-bochasanwasi-on-10-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-bochasanwasi-on-10-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs Bochasanwasi on 10 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-16T08:32:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-bochasanwasi-on-10-march-2010"},"wordCount":1715,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-bochasanwasi-on-10-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-bochasanwasi-on-10-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-bochasanwasi-on-10-march-2010","name":"Commissioner vs Bochasanwasi on 10 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-16T08:32:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-bochasanwasi-on-10-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-bochasanwasi-on-10-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-bochasanwasi-on-10-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs Bochasanwasi on 10 March, 2010"}]},{"@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\/103575","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=103575"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103575\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=103575"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=103575"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=103575"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}