{"id":105268,"date":"1993-03-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1993-03-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-paper-corpn-ltd-etc-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-26-march-1993"},"modified":"2018-07-23T04:53:13","modified_gmt":"2018-07-22T23:23:13","slug":"hindustan-paper-corpn-ltd-etc-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-26-march-1993","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-paper-corpn-ltd-etc-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-26-march-1993","title":{"rendered":"Hindustan Paper Corpn. Ltd. Etc. … vs State Of Kerala And Others on 26 March, 1993"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Hindustan Paper Corpn. Ltd. Etc. … vs State Of Kerala And Others on 26 March, 1993<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1993 SCR (2) 655, \t 1993 SCC Supl. (3) 350<\/div>\n
Author: B Jeevan Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nHINDUSTAN PAPER CORPN.\tLTD.  ETC.  ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT26\/03\/1993\n\nBENCH:\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\nVENKATACHALA N. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1993 SCR  (2) 655\t  1993 SCC  Supl.  (3) 350\n JT 1993 (2)   458\t  1993 SCALE  (2)238\n\n\nACT:\nCentral Sales Tax Act 1956.  Section 8(2A).\nKerala General Sales Tax Act 1963: Section 10 & Notification\nRSO 415 of 1971.\nCentral\t Sales\tTax-Exemption-Whether  available  for  inter\nstate\tsales\talso-Exemption\t contained   in\t  the\t1971\nNotification-\"Whether an exemption from tax 'generally'.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  State  of Kerala issued Notification RSO  415  of\t1971\nunder  Section\t10  of\tthe Kerala  General  Sales  Tax\t Act\nproviding  for an exemption in respect of tax in  regard  to\nthe turn over of the sales of newsprint for a period of\t two\nyears from the date of starting production of the  newsprint\nplant.\t The  appellant entered into an agreement  with\t the\nState Government in 1974 giving the said exemption.\nA major portion of the newsprint manufactured at the factory\nlocated\t within the State was sold in the course  of  inter-\nstate  trade and commerce, and during the  assessment  years\nrelevant to the period of the two years from the date of the\ncommencement  of  the  production,  the\t appellant   claimed\nexemption  not only from the State Sales Tax, by  virtue  of\nthe  1971 Notification and the 1974 agreement but also\tfrom\nthe  Central  Sales Tax under and by virtue  of\t sub-section\n(2A) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act.\nThe  Sales  Tax Officer accepted the claim under  the  State\nSales Tax Act but rejected the claim under the Central Sales\nTax Act.\nAppeals\t  preferred  by\t the  appellant\t to  the   Appellant\nAssistant Commissioner and the Sales Tax Appellant  Tribunal\nwere  dismissed, and when the appellant approached the\tHigh\nCourt by way of revision under Section 41 of the State Sales\nTax  Act  the  High  Court  also  dismissed  the   revisions\npetitions.\n656\nIn  the appeals to this Court it was contended on behalf  of\nthe appellant relying on Pine Chemicals Limited v. Assessing\nAuthority,<\/a> [199] 2 S.C.C. 683 that the exemption granted  to\nIt  by the 1971 State Government notification  Issued  under\nthe  Kerala Sales Tax Act Is a general exemption within\t the\nmeaning\t of Section 8(2A) and, therefore, the  inter-  state\nsales  effected by it are equally exempt from Central  Sales\nTax by virtue of Section 8(2A).\nThe  State  contested  the appeals by  contending  that\t the\nexemption granted to the appellant under the State Sales Tax\nis  not a general exemption but a conditional one, and\tthat\nthe   exemption\t  operates   only   in\t certain   specified\ncircumstances,\tand that the provision contained in  Section\n8(2A)  does  not go to exempt the inter-state sales  of\t the\nappellant.\nOn the question whether the exemption granted under the 1971\nState  notification exempting the produce of  the  appellant\nfactory manufacturing newsprint from the State Sales Tax for\na  period  of  two years from the date\tof  commencement  of\nproduction  in the factory can be called An  exemption\tfrom\ntax 'generally'.\nAllowing the appeals, this Court,\nHELD:1. The inter-state sales effected by the appellant\nare  those failing under Section 3(a) of the  Central  Sales\nTax  Act.The  liability to pay Central Sales Tax  on  inter-\nstate  sales arises by virtue of sub-section (1) of  Section\n6. Sub-section (2A) of section 8 seeks to provide  exemption\nto  a dealer with respect to his turnover.  The\t explanation\nappended to the sub-section is couched in negative terms and\nseeks  to define the words 'exempt from tax generally\",\t and\nindicates when a sale or purchase of any goods shall not  be\ndeemed to be exempt from tax generally under the State Sales\nTax Law. [659 B, 660 B-C]\n2.An  inter-state sale or purchase of a\t commodity  shall\nnot  be\t deemed as exempt from State Tax  generally  if\t the\nexemption  is given only (1) in specified  circumstances  or\nunder specified conditions or (2) the tax is leviable on the\nsale  or purchase of such goods at specified stages  or\t (3)\notherwise than with reference to the turnover of the  goods.\nThese  conditions or limitations are with reference  to\t the\ntransaction of sale or purchase. [663 F-G]\n657\n3.The  existence  or  otherwise of  the\t aforesaid  three\nlimitations  on\t claiming exemption  the  explanation  under\nSection S(2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act will have to  be\ntested with reference to the transaction of sale or purchase\nas the case may be of the dealer who claims the exemption in\nrespect\t of  his  intrastate sale or purchase  of  the\tsame\ngoods. [663 H, 664 A]\n4.The  facts  which the dealer has to prove  to\t get  the\nbenefit\t of  the  government orders  are  intended  only  to\nidentify  the dealer and the goods in respect-of  which\t the\nexemption   is\tsought\tand  they  are\tnot  conditions\t  or\nspecifications\tof  circumstances relating to  the  turnover\nsought to be exempted from payment of tax within the meaning\nof Section 8(2-A). [664 E]\n5.The  conditions relating to identity of the  goods  and\nthe  dealer  are always there in every\texemption  and\tthat\ncannot be put as a condition of sale. [664 G]\nPine  Chemicals\t Limited v. Assessing  Authority,<\/a>  [1992]  2\nS.C.C. 683, explained and followed. [660 H]\nIndian\tAluminum Cables v. State of Haryana, 38 S.T.C.\t108,\nIndustrial  Cables Corporation v. Commercial Tax Officer  35\nS.T.C. 1, distinguished. [662 A]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 507375\/1985
\nFrom  the  Judgment and Order dated 9.9.1985 of\t the  Kerala
\nHigh Court in T.R.C. Nos. 29, 30 and 31 of 1985.
\nA.S.  Nambiar, Mrs. Shanta Vasudevan, P.K. Manohar and\tC.N.
\nSreekumar for the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.
\nB.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Civil Appeal Nos. 5073-75185.
\nThese  appeals\tarise from a common judgment of\t the  Kerala
\nHigh  Court  in a batch of three tax  revision\tcases.\t The
\nquestion  relates to the interpretation of Section 8(2A)  of
\nthe Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.\n<\/p>\n
658<\/span><\/p>\n
In exercise of the power conferred upon it by Section 10  of
\nthe  Kerala  Sales  Tax Act, the State of  Kerala  issued  a
\nnotification  RS0415 of 1971 providing for “an exemption  in
\nrespect\t of the tax payable under the said Act in regard  to
\nthe  turn-over\tof the sales of newsprint by  the  newsprint
\nplant in the State for the period of two years from the date
\nof starting production of the newsprint by the said plant.’
\nThe  appellant Hindustan Paper Corporation  Limited  entered
\ninto an agreement with the Government of Kerala in the year,
\n1974  reiterating the said exemption.  The relevant  portion
\nof the agreement reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The Government of Kerala, with a view to help
\n\t      the  project to tide over the difficulties  in
\n\t      the  initial stages and to  establish  itself,
\n\t      agree  to exempt the turnover relating to\t the
\n\t      sale, of the products by the corporation\tfrom
\n\t      the  payment of sales tax for a period of\t two
\n\t      years from the date of starting of  production
\n\t      of the newsprint.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
A major portion of the newsprint manufactured at the factory
\nlocated\t within Kerala is sold in the course of\t inter-state
\ntrade and commerce.  During the assessment years relevant to
\nthe period of the two years from the date of commencement of
\nproduction  at\tthe Kerala Factory,  the  appellant  claimed
\nexemption not only from the State sales tax by virtue of the
\naforesaid  notification and agreement but also from  Central
\nSales Tax under and by virtue of sub-section (2A) of Section
\n8  of  the  Central Sales Tax Act.  The\t Sales\tTax  Officer
\naccepted  the  claim  under  the State\tSales  Tax  Act\t but
\nrejected  the  claim under the Central Sales Tax  Act.\t The
\nappeals\t  preferred  by\t the  appellant\t to  the   Appellate
\nAssistant Commissioner and the Sales Tax Appellate  Tribunal
\nwere dismissed whereupon it approached the High Court by way
\nof  revisions under Section 41 of the State Sales  Tax\tAct.
\nThe  High Court too disagreed with the contentions urged  by
\nthe appellant and dismissed the tax revision cases.   Hence,
\nthese appeals.\n<\/p>\n
The  dispute  between the parties, in brief,  is  thus:\t the
\nappellant says that exemption granted to it by the aforesaid
\nnotification issued under the Kerala Sales Tax\tis a general
\nexemption   within  the\t meaning  of  Section\t8(2A)\tand,
\ntherefore, the inter- state sales effected by it are equally
\nexempt\tfrom Central Sales Tax by virtue of  Section  8(2A).
\nOn the other hand, the
\n659<\/span>
\ncase  of  the  Government of Kerala is\tthat  the  exemption
\ngranted\t to the appellant under the State Sales Tax  Act  is
\nnot  a general exemption but a conditional one; further\t the
\nexemption operates only in certain specified  circumstances.
\nAccordingly,  they say, the provision contained\t in  Section
\n8(2A)  does  not go to exempt the inter-state sales  of\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
The  inter-state sales effected by the appellant  are  those
\nfailing\t under\tSection 3(A) of the Central Sales  Tax\tAct.
\nThe liability to pay Central Sales Tax on inter-state  sales
\narises\tby  virtue  of sub-section (1) of  Section  6.\tSub-
\nsection (1A) of Sec. 6 says that a dealer shall be liable to
\npay  tax under the Central Act on sale of goods effected  by
\nhim   in  the  course  of  inter-state\ttrade  or   commerce
\nnotwithstanding\t that no tax would have been leviable  under
\nthe Sales Tax law of the appropriate State if such sale\t had
\ntaken place inside the State.  Sub-section (1) of Section  8
\nprescribes  the\t rate  at which the  Central  Sales  Tax  is
\nchargeable   where  the\t goods\tare  sold  to  persons\t and
\nauthorities   mentioned\t  therein  while   sub-section\t (2)
\nprescribes the rate in cases other than those falling  under
\nsub-section  (1).  Sub-section (2A) of Section 8,  which  is
\nmaterial for our purpose reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(2A)  Notwithstanding anything  contained  in
\n\t      sub-section  (lA) of Section 6 or\t sub-section
\n\t      (1)  or clause (b) of sub-section (2) of\tthis
\n\t      section,\tthe tax payable under this Act by  a
\n\t      dealer  on  his  turnover in  so\tfar  as\t the
\n\t      turnover\tor any part thereof relates  to\t the
\n\t      sale  of any goods, the sale or, as  the\tcase
\n\t      may  be,\tthe purchase of which is  under\t the
\n\t      sales tax law of the appropriate State, exempt
\n\t      from tax generally or subject to tax generally
\n\t      at  a rate which is lower than four per  cent.
\n\t      (Whether\tcalled a tax or fee or by any  other
\n\t      name),  shall be nill or, as the case may\t be,
\n\t      shall be calculated at the lower rate.
\n\t      Explanation:-  For  the purpose of  this\tsub-
\n\t      section a sale or purchase of any goods  shall
\n\t      not be deemed to be exempt from tax  generally
\n\t      under  the  sales tax law of  the\t appropriate
\n\t      State  if under that law the sale or  purchase
\n\t      of  such\tgoods  is  exempt  only\t in  special
\n\t      circumstances or under specified conditions or
\n\t      the  tax is levied on the sale or purchase  of
\n\t      such  goods at specified stages  or  otherwise
\n\t      than  with  reference to the turnover  of\t the
\n\t      goods.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      660.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
What  does  sub-section\t (2A) says?  It opens  with  a\tnon-
\nobstante clause which gives it an overriding effect over the
\nprovisions  contained in Sections (lA) and over\t sub-section
\n(1) as well as clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 8. b
\nsection\t seeks to provide exemption to a dealer with  expect
\nto  his\t turnover  in so far as his  turnover  or  any\tpart
\nthereof\t relates (a) sale of any goods, the sale or, as\t the
\ncase  may be, the purchase of which is under the  sales\t tax
\nlaw  of the appropriate State, exempt from tax generally  or\n<\/p>\n
(b)  where his turnover or any part thereof relates  to\t the
\nsale  of any goods the sale or purchase of which is  subject
\nto  tax\t generally at a rate which is lower  than  four\t per
\ncent.\tIn a case covered by (a) the Central Sales Tax\twill
\nbe nil while in a case falling under (b), Central Sales\t Tax
\nshall  he  chargeable at the same lower rate  at  which\t the
\nState sales tax is charge-able.\t The explanation appended to
\nsub-section  seeks  to\tdefine the words  “exempt  from\t tax
\ngenerally.”  The explanation is couched in  negative  terms.
\nIt  says  that for the purposes of the said  sub-section,  a
\nsale  or  purchase of any goods shall not be  deemed  to  be
\nexempt\tfrom tax generally under the State Sales Tax law  if\n<\/p>\n
(i)  under the State law the sale or purchase of such  goods
\nis  exempt only in specified circumstances or (ii) if  under
\nthe’ State law the sale or purchase of such goods is  exempt
\nonly under specified conditions or (iii) if under the  State
\nlaw the tax is levied on the sale or purchase of such  goods
\nat  specified stages or (iv) where under the State  law\t the
\ntax is levied otherwise than with reference to the  turnover
\nof the goods.\n<\/p>\n
The  sole  question in this case is  whether  the  exemption
\ngranted\t under\tthe  aforesaid\tnotification  exempting\t the
\nproduce of a factory manufacturing newsprint from the  State
\nsales  tax  for\t a  period of two years\t from  the  date  of
\ncommencement  of production in the factory can be called  an
\nexemption  from tax generally.\tTo put it  differently,\t the
\nquestion is whether the said exemption is one operative only
\nin  specified circumstances or whether the exemption is\t one
\nwhich is operative only under specified conditions in  which
\ncase it cannot be said to be an exemption “generally.
\nThe  learned  counsel  for the\tappellant  relies  upon\t the
\ndecision  of  this  Court  in  Pine  Chemicals\tLimited\t  v.
\nAssessing  Authority,<\/a>  [1992]  2  S.C.C.  683,\ta   decision
\nrendered by S. Ranganathan, V. Ramaswami and N.D. Ojha,\t )J.
\nAccording  to  him, the said decision is conclusive  on\t the
\nquestion.\n<\/p>\n
661<\/span><\/p>\n
The  counsel  for the State of Kerala, on  the\tother  hand,
\nseeks  to distinguish the said decision.  According to\thim,
\nthe said decision does not consider the precise question and
\naspect which really, arises in these .appeals.\tThe  learned
\ncounsel\t for  the State of Kerala, Sri G.  Vishwanath  lyer,
\nputs  his case thus: if one is asked whether  the  exemption
\ngranted\t under\tthe  aforesaid\tnotification  is  a  general
\nexemption,  his obvious answer would be, no.  It is  not  an
\nexemption which operates generally but an exemption  limited
\nto two years from the date of commencement of the production
\nof  newsprint  in the factory.\tSimilarly, if  a  person  is
\nasked  whether newsprint is exempt generally from the  State
\nsales  tax in Kerala, none would answer in the\taffirmative.
\nHe would say that the sale of newsprint in Kerala is  exempt
\nonly in certain circumstances or subject only to a condition
\nviz.,  that  newsprint is produced within two years  of\t the
\ncommencement  of  the production in the factory\t located  in
\nKerala.\t  It is, therefore, idle to contend, says Sri  lyer,
\nthat the sale of newsprint within Kerala is exempt generally
\nfrom the State sales tax.  In such a case, says the counsel,
\nthe  provision contained in sub-section (2A) does  not\tcome
\ninto  operation and the inter-state sales of such  newsprint
\ncannot be said to be exempt from the Central Sales Tax.\t Mr.
\nlyer further says that the exemption notification issued  by
\nthe  Government of Kerala under Section 10 of the State\t Act
\ndoes  not  exempt  newsprint from the State  sales  tax\t al-
\ntogether.  It grants exemption only in a specified situation
\nviz., in respect of the newsprint produced within the period
\nof two years from the date of commencement of production  by
\na  factory manufacturing newsprint in the State\t of  Kerala.
\nThe  exemption would thus operate for different\t periods  in
\nthe  case  of different assessees inasmuch as  the  date  of
\ncommencement  of  production  by all  the  manufacturers  of
\nnewsprint may not be the same.\tMoreover, the benefit of the
\nsaid  notification  is available only where a  factory\tgoes
\ninto production after the commencement of the said notifica-
\ntion,  says  Sri lyer, He elaborates his  submission  saying
\nthat the exemption granted by the said notification is\tonly
\nin  favour  of\tcertain dealers or a class  of\tdealers,  in
\ncertain circumstances and is not in the nature of a  general
\nexemption.  An exemption given under Section 10 of the State
\nAct  with reference to dealers or a class of  dealers  i.e.,
\nreferable  to  clause  (ii) of\tsub-section  (1),  says\t the
\ncounsel, can never be called a general exemption nor can  it
\nbe  characterised as an exemption operating ‘generally’.   A
\ngeneral exemption, according to the learned counsel, means a
\ngeneral, unqualified\/unconditional exemption.  Counsel\tsays
\nthat the decisions of
\n662<\/span>
\nthis Court in Indian Aluminum Cables v. State of Haryana  38
\nS.T.C.\t 108  and  in  Industrial  Cables   Corporation\t  V.
\nCommercial  Tax Officer 35 S.T.C. 1 support his\t contention.
\nThe  learned counsel places strong reliance upon the  object
\nand reasons appended to the bill proposing the\tsubstitution
\nof  sub-section\t (2A)  in the year 1972.   The\tobjects\t and
\nreasons relied upon by the learned counsel read thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Clause 5 Sub-Clause (a) of this clause  seeks
\n\t      to  substitute  a\t new  sub-section  for\t the
\n\t      existing sub-section (2A) of Section 8 of\t the
\n\t      Principal\t Act.  The new sub-section seeks  to
\n\t      bring  out more clearly that an  exemption  or
\n\t      lower  rate of levy under the local sales\t tax
\n\t      law   of\tthe  appropriate  State\t  would\t  be
\n\t      available in respect of an inter-state sale of
\n\t      goods only if such exemption or lower levy  is
\n\t      available\t generally with reference.  to\tsuch
\n\t      goods  or such class of goods under the  local
\n\t      sales tax law.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
According  to  Sri Iyer the said statement  of\tobjects\t and
\nreasons\t puts  the meaning, purpose and object of  the\tsub-
\nsection beyond any doubt.\n<\/p>\n
On the other hand, Sri A.S. Nambiar, learned counsel for the
\nappellant-corporation  submits,\t adopting the  reasoning  in
\nPine   Chemicals  that\tthe  circumstances   or\t  conditions
\ncontemplated  by the explanation to sub-section must be\t the
\ncircumstances  and conditions attaching to the sale and\t not
\nto the dealer.\tThe exemption notification merely serves  to
\nidentify the dealer and the goods entitled to exemption\t but
\nit  does  not  lay  down  any  circumstances  or  conditions
\nattaching  to  the sale of goods (Newsprint).\tSri  Nambiar
\nsays  that once the goods are identified viz., that it is  a
\nnewsprint manufactured by a factory within two years of\t its
\ncommencing   production,  there\t is  no\t further   condition
\nattaching to the exemption; the goods are exempt  generally.
\nIt is not a case where the exemption is hedged in by certain
\nconditions  nor\t is it a case where the\t exemption  operates
\nonly in certain circumstances.\tThe learned counsel  submits
\nthat  the  decisions of this court in  Indian  Aluminum\t and
\nIndustrial Cables have been considered and explained by this
\nCourt  in  Pine Chemicals and, therefore, the  principle  of
\nthose  decisions  cannot be read as supporting\tthe  State’s
\nsubmissions.\n<\/p>\n
While  we  see\tthe force in the submissions  of  Sri  Iyer,
\nlearned\t counsel  for the State of Kerala,  we\tcannot\tgive
\neffect to the same in the light of
\n663<\/span>
\nthe  binding decision in Pine Chemicals which deals with  an
\nalmost\tsimilar exemption notification.\t The  Government  of
\nJammu  & Kashmir had issued orders providing  for  exemption
\n“from the State sales tax both on raw-materials and finished
\nproducts  for a period of five years from the date the\tunit
\ngoes into production.” Question had arisen whether the\tsaid
\nexemption attracts the exemption contained in Section  8(2A)
\nof  the Central Act?  The said question was answered in\t the
\naffirmative  by\t V., Ramaswami, J. speaking for\t the  Bench.
\nThe learned Judge examined the scheme of sub-section (1) and
\n(lA)  of Section 6 as well as of sub-sections (1),  (2)\t and
\n(2A) of
\nSection 8 and then observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “On  a plain reading of Section 8(2-A) of\t the
\n\t      Central  Sales  tax  Act\tit  deals  with\t the
\n\t      liability of a dealer to pay tax under the Act
\n\t      on  his interstate sales turnover relating  to
\n\t      any  goods  on the turnover relating  to\tsuch
\n\t      goods  if the sale had taken place inside\t the
\n\t      State  is\t exempt from payment  of  sales\t tax
\n\t      under  the  sales tax law of  the\t appropriate
\n\t      State.  It provides that if an intrastate sale
\n\t      or  purchase of a commodity by the  dealer  is
\n\t      exempt  from tax generally or subject  to\t tax
\n\t      generally at a rate which is lower than 4\t per
\n\t      cent  than  his  liability to  tax  under\t the
\n\t      Central  Sales Tax Act when such commodity  is
\n\t      sold on inter-state trade would be either\t nil
\n\t      or as the case may be shall be calculated at a
\n\t      lower rate.  Explanation states as to when the
\n\t      sale or purchase shall not be deemed as to  be
\n\t      exempt from tax generally under the sales\t tax
\n\t      law.   That  is to say an intrastate  sale  or
\n\t      purchase\tshall not be deemed as to be  exempt
\n\t      from  tax generally under the sales  tax\tlaw.
\n\t      That is to say an intrastate sale or  purchase
\n\t      of  a commodity shall not be deemed as  exempt
\n\t      from  State tax generally if the exemption  is
\n\t      given  only (1) in specified circumstances  or
\n\t      under  specified conditions or (2) the tax  is
\n\t      leviable on the sale or purchase of such goods
\n\t      at specified stages or (3) otherwise than with
\n\t      reference to the turnover of the goods.  These
\n\t      conditions  or limitations are therefore\twith
\n\t      reference\t to  the  transaction  of  sale\t  or
\n\t      purchase.\t  The  main clause  deals  with\t the
\n\t      turnover\tof  ‘a\tdealer’\t which\tterm   would
\n\t      include ‘any dealer’ or ‘any class of dealers’
\n\t      The  existence  or  otherwise  of\t the   three
\n\t      Limitations under the
\n\t      664<\/span>
\n\t      explanation  above  referred  to\ton  claiming
\n\t      exemption under Section 8(2-A) of the  Central
\n\t      Sales Tax Act will therefore have to be tested
\n\t      with  reference to the transaction of sale  or
\n\t      purchase as the case may be of the dealer\t who
\n\t      claims   the  exemption  in  respect  of\t his
\n\t      intrastate sale or purchase of the same goods.
\n\t      Thus  the\t specified  circumstances  and\t the
\n\t      specified\t  conditions  referred\tto  in\t the
\n\t      explanation  should be with reference  to\t the
\n\t      local  turnover of the same dealer who  claims
\n\t      exemption under Section 8(2-A) of the  Central
\n\t      Sales Tax Act.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      The  learned  Advocate-General for  the  State
\n\t\t\t    contended that the conditions that the industr
\ny
\n\t      should  have  been  set  up  and\tcommissioned
\n\t      subsequent  to the Government Orders  159\t and
\n\t      414  above referred to and the commodity\tsold
\n\t      by  him in order to claim the exemption  under
\n\t      the  said\t government order,  shall  be  those
\n\t      manufactured  by that industry are  conditions
\n\t      or specified circumstances within the  meaning
\n\t      of the explanation and, therefore, the  dealer
\n\t      (Pine  Chemicals)\t is  not  entitled  to\t any
\n\t      exemption under Section 8(2-A) of the  Central
\n\t      Sales  Tax Act.  We are unable to\t agree\twith
\n\t      this submission of the learned counsel for the
\n\t      State.   The  facts which the  dealer  has  to
\n\t      prove  to\t get the benefit of  the  government
\n\t      orders  are  intended  only  to  identify\t the
\n\t      dealer  and the goods in respect of which\t the
\n\t      exemption\t  is   sought  and  they   are\t not
\n\t      conditions or specifications of  circumstances
\n\t      relating to the turnover sought to be exempted
\n\t      from  payment  of tax within  the\t meaning  of
\n\t      those provision.\tThe specified  circumstances
\n\t      and  the specified conditions referred  to  in
\n\t      the   explanation\t  should   relate   to\t the
\n\t      transaction  of sale of the commodity and\t not
\n\t      identification of the dealer or the  commodity
\n\t      in respect of the exemption is claimed.  These
\n\t      conditions  relating to identity of the  goods
\n\t      and  the\tdealer\tare always  there  in  every
\n\t      exemption\t  and  that  cannot  be\t put  as   a
\n\t      condition of sale.  We have already held\tthat
\n\t      not  only sale by the manufacturer  to  dealer
\n\t      that is exempt under the government orders but
\n\t      since  the General Sales Tax Act\thad  adopted
\n\t      only a single point levy, even the sub-\n<\/p>\n
\t      665<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      sequent\tsales  would  be  covered   by\t the
\n\t      exemption\t order.\t  Therefore,  the   question
\n\t      whether  the  tax is leviable on the  sale  or
\n\t      purchase\tat ‘specified stage” does not  arise
\n\t      for  consideration.  This is not also  a\tcase
\n\t      where  the  exemption  is\t with  reference  to
\n\t      something\t other\tthan  the  turnover  of\t the
\n\t      goods.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t (emphasis added)
\nThe  learned  Judge then dealt with the\t decisions  of\tthis
\nCourt\tin  Indian  Aluminum  and  Industrial\tCables\t and
\ndistinguished them pointing out that the exemption concerned
\nin  those cases was clearly a conditional one.\tThe  learned
\nJudge  pointed out that the exemption concerned therein\t was
\nwith   respect\tto  “sales  of\tan   undertaking   supplying
\nelectrical energy to the public under a licence or  sanction
\ngranted\t or  deemed to have been granted  under\t the  Indian
\nElectricity Act, 1910 (9 of 1910), of goods for use by it in
\ngeneration  or\tdistribution of such  energy.”\tThe  learned
\nJudge  pointed out that the two conditions mentioned in\t the
\nsaid  notification  related  to\t purchaser-company  being  a
\nlicensed  undertaking  supplying electrical  energy  to\t the
\npublic and further that the goods sold to it are for use  by
\nthe  said undertaking in generation or distribution of\tsuch
\nenergy.\n<\/p>\n
Following  the\tdecision  in Pine  Chemicals,  we  must\t and
\naccordingly  we\t do allow these appeals.  No  orders  as  to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
N.V.K.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals allowed.\n<\/p>\n
666<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Hindustan Paper Corpn. Ltd. Etc. … vs State Of Kerala And Others on 26 March, 1993 Equivalent citations: 1993 SCR (2) 655, 1993 SCC Supl. (3) 350 Author: B Jeevan Reddy Bench: Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) PETITIONER: HINDUSTAN PAPER CORPN. LTD. ETC. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS DATE […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-105268","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nHindustan Paper Corpn. Ltd. Etc. ... vs State Of Kerala And Others on 26 March, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/hindustan-paper-corpn-ltd-etc-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-26-march-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hindustan Paper Corpn. Ltd. Etc. ... vs State Of Kerala And Others on 26 March, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-paper-corpn-ltd-etc-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-26-march-1993\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1993-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-22T23:23:13+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-paper-corpn-ltd-etc-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-26-march-1993#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-paper-corpn-ltd-etc-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-26-march-1993\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hindustan Paper Corpn. Ltd. Etc. … vs State Of Kerala And Others on 26 March, 1993\",\"datePublished\":\"1993-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-22T23:23:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-paper-corpn-ltd-etc-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-26-march-1993\"},\"wordCount\":3214,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-paper-corpn-ltd-etc-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-26-march-1993#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-paper-corpn-ltd-etc-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-26-march-1993\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-paper-corpn-ltd-etc-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-26-march-1993\",\"name\":\"Hindustan Paper Corpn. Ltd. Etc. ... vs State Of Kerala And Others on 26 March, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1993-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-22T23:23:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-paper-corpn-ltd-etc-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-26-march-1993#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-paper-corpn-ltd-etc-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-26-march-1993\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-paper-corpn-ltd-etc-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-26-march-1993#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hindustan Paper Corpn. Ltd. Etc. … vs State Of Kerala And Others on 26 March, 1993\"}]},{\"@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":"Hindustan Paper Corpn. Ltd. Etc. ... vs State Of Kerala And Others on 26 March, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/hindustan-paper-corpn-ltd-etc-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-26-march-1993","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hindustan Paper Corpn. Ltd. Etc. ... vs State Of Kerala And Others on 26 March, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-paper-corpn-ltd-etc-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-26-march-1993","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1993-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-22T23:23:13+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-paper-corpn-ltd-etc-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-26-march-1993#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-paper-corpn-ltd-etc-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-26-march-1993"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hindustan Paper Corpn. Ltd. Etc. … vs State Of Kerala And Others on 26 March, 1993","datePublished":"1993-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-22T23:23:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-paper-corpn-ltd-etc-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-26-march-1993"},"wordCount":3214,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-paper-corpn-ltd-etc-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-26-march-1993#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-paper-corpn-ltd-etc-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-26-march-1993","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-paper-corpn-ltd-etc-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-26-march-1993","name":"Hindustan Paper Corpn. Ltd. Etc. ... vs State Of Kerala And Others on 26 March, 1993 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1993-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-22T23:23:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-paper-corpn-ltd-etc-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-26-march-1993#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-paper-corpn-ltd-etc-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-26-march-1993"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-paper-corpn-ltd-etc-vs-state-of-kerala-and-others-on-26-march-1993#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hindustan Paper Corpn. Ltd. Etc. … vs State Of Kerala And Others on 26 March, 1993"}]},{"@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\/105268","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=105268"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105268\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=105268"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=105268"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=105268"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}