{"id":103673,"date":"2010-07-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-july-2010"},"modified":"2017-12-09T22:35:23","modified_gmt":"2017-12-09T17:05:23","slug":"commissioner-vs-the-on-22-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs The on 22 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner vs The on 22 July, 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\/1861\/2009\t 1\/ 7\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. 1861 of 2009\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER\nOF CENTRAL EXCISE &amp; CUSTOMS - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nCOLORTEK\n(INDIA) LTD., - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\nAppearance : \nMR.VARUN\nK.PATEL 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\nDate\n: 22\/07\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI)<\/p>\n<p>1.\tThe<br \/>\nappellant-revenue has challenged order dated 14.11.2007 made by the<br \/>\nCustoms, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal)<br \/>\nproposing following five questions :\n<\/p>\n<p>(1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances<br \/>\nof the case, when the finished goods as well as semi-finished goods,<br \/>\nthough not accounted for, were found lying in the factory premises<br \/>\nduring the visit of the Central Excise Officers, independent<br \/>\nevidences like availability  of man-power near the goods for removal<br \/>\nthereof, transport vehicle in which the same was intended to be<br \/>\nloaded as well as other doubtful activities going on in the premises<br \/>\nduring the visit of the officers corroborating the intention of the<br \/>\nrespondent company of removal of the said goods without payment of<br \/>\nduty is necessary for passing confiscation order and imposition of<br \/>\npenalty on the respondent company?\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)\tWhether, in the facts and circumstances<br \/>\nof the case, when the unaccounted for goods were found lying in the<br \/>\nfactory premises at the time of visit of the Central Excise Officers<br \/>\nand the authorized signatory and Manager (Works) could not give<br \/>\nexplanation for the same and having specifically admitted in their<br \/>\nstatements that the said goods placed under seizure were fully<br \/>\nfinished and excess and not accounted for in the statutory records,<br \/>\nthe action of imposition of penalty on the respondent company is not<br \/>\njustifiable merely on the ground that it is a technical contravention<br \/>\nonly?\n<\/p>\n<p>(3)\tWhether, the offence committed by the<br \/>\nrespondent of non-maintenance of statutory record is only a technical<br \/>\ncontravention since it does not indicate intention on the part of the<br \/>\nrespondent to remove the said goods without payment of duty?\n<\/p>\n<p>(4)\tWhether, as per Rule 53 of Central<br \/>\nExcise Rules, 1944 if any manufacturer does not maintain stock<br \/>\naccount in such form and enter in such account the daily production,<br \/>\nit amounts to technical contravention only and corroborative evidence<br \/>\nis necessary to indicate that the goods were not entered in RG-1<br \/>\nregister with an intention to remove them without payment of duty?\n<\/p>\n<p>(5)\tWhether, the lapse on the part of the<br \/>\nrespondent of not making entry of the goods in the RG-I register can<br \/>\nbe treated as condonable lapse in the facts and circumstances of the<br \/>\ncase?\n<\/p>\n<p>Subsequently<br \/>\nthe learned Counsel for the appellant revenue has proposed the<br \/>\nfollowing additional question :\n<\/p>\n<p> Whether mens rea\/intention to evade duty<br \/>\nis the condition precedent for confiscation or penalty under Rule<br \/>\n173Q(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules 1944 ?\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe<br \/>\nrespondent assessee had not accounted for 611.40 Kgs. of fully<br \/>\nfinished goods valued at Rs.1,60,153.00 lying in its factory in R.G.1<br \/>\nRegister. Show cause notice dated 12.9.1997 proposing confiscation of<br \/>\nthe seized goods as well as imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q(1)<br \/>\nand Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 (the Rules)<br \/>\ncame to be confirmed, holding that the goods were liable to<br \/>\nconfiscation and the assessee was liable for penalty under Rule 173Q<br \/>\n(1) of the Rules. Accordingly, the seized goods were ordered to be<br \/>\nconfiscated. The  Bank Guarantee of Rs.30,000\/- came to be<br \/>\nappropriated in lieu of confiscation of seized goods along with<br \/>\npenalty Rs.2000\/-, duty of Rs.25,120.80\/- came to be confirmed and<br \/>\npenalties of  Rs.500\/- each came to be imposed on the Manager and<br \/>\nAuthorised Signatory. The assessee carried the matter in appeal<br \/>\nbefore the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the confiscation but<br \/>\nmaintained the penalties. Revenue carried the matter in appeal before<br \/>\nthe Tribunal but did not succeed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tStanding Counsel for the appellant revenue has vehemently assailed<br \/>\n\tthe impugned order submitting that the show cause notice had been<br \/>\n\tissued against the respondent for contravention of the provisions of<br \/>\n\tRule 173Q(1)(b) as well as 173Q(1)(d) of the Rules. It is submitted<br \/>\n\tas per Rule 53 of the Rules, every manufacturer is required to<br \/>\n\tmaintain a stock account in such From as the Commissioner may in any<br \/>\n\tparticular case or class of cases allow, and shall enter in such<br \/>\n\taccount daily the matters enumerated thereunder. In the light of the<br \/>\n\tprovisions of Rule 173Q(1)(b) and Rule 173(1) (d) of the Rules, if<br \/>\n\tany manufacturer does not account for any excisable goods<br \/>\n\tmanufactured, produced or stored by him; or  contravenes any of the<br \/>\n\tprovisions of the rules with intent to evade payment of duty, all<br \/>\n\tsuch goods are liable to confiscation. It is submitted that in the<br \/>\n\tpresent case the respondent had contravened the provisions of Rule<br \/>\n\t53 inasmuch as the finished goods were not entered in RG1 register,<br \/>\n\thence, the goods were also liable to confiscation under Rule 226 of<br \/>\n\tthe Rules. It is submitted that in the facts of the present case<br \/>\n\tthere being a clear contravention of the provisions of Rule 53, the<br \/>\n\tTribunal was not justified in holding that confiscation was not<br \/>\n\twarranted. It is submitted that the fact that the finished goods<br \/>\n\twere not entered in the RG-1 Register is indicative of the intention<br \/>\n\tof the respondent to evade payment of duty. Alternatively, it was<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that Rule 173Q(1)(d) is a stand alone provision and even<br \/>\n\tin absence of any intention to evade payment of duty, the<br \/>\n\tunaccounted goods were liable to confiscation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAs can be seen from the order made by<br \/>\n\tCommissioner (Appeals), upon appreciation of the evidence on record,<br \/>\n\the has found as a matter of fact that revenue was not in a position<br \/>\n\tto prove that there was any intention on the part of the respondent<br \/>\n\tassessee to evade payment of duty and has accordingly held that the<br \/>\n\tgoods were not liable to confiscation. However, he has maintained<br \/>\n\tpenalty for non maintenance of statutory records.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tThe<br \/>\nTribunal in the impugned order has concurred with the findings<br \/>\nrecorded by Commissioner (Appeals) and has found that there was no<br \/>\nevidence to show  that the assessee had any intention to remove the<br \/>\ngoods without payment of duty.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tThus,<br \/>\nboth Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have recorded<br \/>\nconcurrent findings of fact after appreciating the evidence on record<br \/>\nto the effect that there was no intention on the part of the<br \/>\nrespondent to evade payment of tax. However, since the finished had<br \/>\nnot been entered in the RG-1 Register, the penalty has been<br \/>\nconfirmed. Though as contended by the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nRevenue, even if Rule 173Q(1)(b) can be said to be a stand alone<br \/>\nprovision operating on its own independent of Rule 173Q(1)(d), it is<br \/>\nnot every procedural irregularity which would entail confiscation.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tAs<br \/>\nis apparent from the impugned order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has<br \/>\nbased its conclusions on the aforesaid concurrent findings of fact<br \/>\nrecorded by it. It is not the case of the revenue that the Tribunal<br \/>\nhas placed reliance upon irrelevant material or that it has ignored<br \/>\nrelevant material. In the light of the findings of fact recorded by<br \/>\nthe Tribunal it is not possible to state that the conclusion arrived<br \/>\nat by the Tribunal is in any manner unreasonable or perverse so as to<br \/>\ngive rise to a question of law warranting interference.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tIn<br \/>\nthe circumstances, in absence of any question of law, much less a<br \/>\nsubstantial question of law the appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<pre>         Sd\/-                     Sd\/-\n \n\n      \n    (D.A. Mehta, J. )        (H.N. Devani, J.)\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n  \nM.M.BHATT\n \n\n \n\n\n    \n\n \n\t   \n      \n      \n\t    \n\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n\t   \n      \n\t  \t    \n\t\t   Top\n\t   \n      \n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Commissioner vs The on 22 July, 2010 Author: D.A.Mehta,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/1861\/2009 1\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 1861 of 2009 ========================================================= COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE &amp; CUSTOMS &#8211; Appellant(s) Versus COLORTEK (INDIA) LTD., &#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-103673","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 The on 22 July, 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-the-on-22-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner vs The on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-july-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=\"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-09T17:05:23+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=\"6 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-the-on-22-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs The on 22 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-09T17:05:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1202,\"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-the-on-22-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs The on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-09T17:05:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs The on 22 July, 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 The on 22 July, 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-the-on-22-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs The on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-09T17:05:23+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs The on 22 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-09T17:05:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-july-2010"},"wordCount":1202,"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-the-on-22-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-july-2010","name":"Commissioner vs The on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-09T17:05:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-the-on-22-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs The on 22 July, 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\/103673","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=103673"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103673\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=103673"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=103673"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=103673"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}