{"id":108267,"date":"1976-04-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1976-04-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-sabarmati-reti-udyog-on-26-april-1976"},"modified":"2017-08-21T14:02:22","modified_gmt":"2017-08-21T08:32:22","slug":"commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-sabarmati-reti-udyog-on-26-april-1976","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-sabarmati-reti-udyog-on-26-april-1976","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax, &#8230; vs M\/S. Sabarmati Reti Udyog &#8230; on 26 April, 1976"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner Of Sales Tax, &#8230; vs M\/S. Sabarmati Reti Udyog &#8230; on 26 April, 1976<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR  197, \t\t  1976 SCR  158<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: P Goswami<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Goswami, P.K.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, GUJARAT\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/S. SABARMATI RETI UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT26\/04\/1976\n\nBENCH:\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\nBENCH:\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\n\nCITATION:\n 1977 AIR  197\t\t  1976 SCR  158\n 1976 SCC  (3) 592\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1989 SC 962\t (22)\n\n\nACT:\n     Sales Tax-Works  contract for  manufacturing and supply\nof  kiln   burnt  bricks-Bricks\t manufactured  and  supplied\naccording to  contract and payment received-Contract whereby\nland is given free and the right to sell to third parties is\nsubject to  restrictions- there is a transfer of chattel for\nconsideration-Contract whether liable to sales tax on bricks\nsupplied-Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.\n     Contract of  sale and  contract for  work\tand  labour-\nDistinction-Beneficial welfare features in a contract do not\nnegate the concept of a contract of a sale.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The respondent  manufactured and  supplied\t kiln  burnt\nbricks to  the appellant  as per  the works  contract  dated\n8\/9th December,\t 1970, which provided (1) that land would be\ngiven free,  (ii) that\tthe material  shall  remain  at\t the\ncontractor's risk till the date of final delivery: and (iii)\nthat the contractor had a right to sell to the third parties\nbricks subject to payment of 10 of the value of materials at\nthe tender  rates  of  the  appellant.\tthe  respondent\t was\nassessed to  sales tax under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959,\non the\tbasis that  these supplies  were sales.\t The  Deputy\nCommissioner of\t Sales Tax on an application under- s. 52 of\nthe Bombay  Sales Tax  Act held\t the supplies  as  sales  on\nappeal\tthe  Sales  Tax\t Appellate  Tribunal  confirmed\t it,\nfollowing the  ratio of\t the decision in 1964 (2) SCR p. 879\n<a href=\"\/doc\/99755\/\">(C. B.\tGosain v.  State of  Orissa and\t Ors.) But, the High\nCourt,<\/a> on  a reference answered it in favour of the assessee\nand against the revenue.\n     Allowing the  Revenue's appeal  by\t special  leave\t the\nCourt,\n^\n     HELD: (1)\tIt is well settled that whether a particular\ntransaction is\tcontract of sale or a works contract depends\nupon the  true construction  of the  terms and conditions of\nthe document,  when there  is one.  The question will depend\nupon the  intention of\tthe parties  executing the contract.\nThere is  no standard formula by which one con distinguish a\ncontract of a contract from the contract for work or labour.\nThe question  is not always easy and has always easy jurists\nall over.  The distinction between contract of sale of goods\nand a  contract for  work and  labour is often a fine one. A\ncontract of  sale is  a contract  whose main  object is\t the\ntransfer of  property in  and the delivery of the possession\nof, a chattel as a chattel to the buyer. [160 E-G]\n     <a href=\"\/doc\/236106\/\">State of  Gujarat v.  Variety Body\t Builders<\/a> [1976] (3)\nSCR 131 applied.\n     Halsbury's Laws of England, referred to.\n     (2) As  per terms\tand conditions of contract, the land\nwas given  free for  manufacture of  bricks;  the  materials\nremained at  the risk  of the  contractor till\tthe date  of\nfinal delivery;\t the respondent could not sell the bricks to\nthird-d parties\t but could do so under certain restrictions;\nthe  contracting  parties  have\t used  the  words  as  sale,\npurchase, delivery  or rates of supply etc. in the contract.\nAll these  terms and  conditions are almost identical to the\nconditions in  Chandra Bhan  Gosailn's case  and  hence\t the\ndecision in that case will govern the present case as well .\nThe various other terms in the contract, namely, maintenance\nof a  qualified executive  engineer for supervision of work,\nrestriction on employment of children under 12 years of age,\nlabour\t   welfare  provisions\tregarding  wages,  workmen's\ncompensation etc., provision relating to cruelty to animals,\nnon-payment of royalty for excavating earth etc. relate to\n159\na process  of proper  and efficient  manufacturing of bricks\nand are\t not inconsistent in a contract of sale. These terms\ndo not appear to impinge on the character of the contract as\none for\t sale of  bricks manufactured. The Government in its\noverall interest  and anxiety  could insist on compliance of\ncertain beneficial  legal measures.  Provision against\tsub-\nletting when  the land\twas given free by the Government was\nalso understandable.  All these\t features do  not negate the\nconcept of  a contract of sale of bricks that are ultimately\nmanufactured. The  true test  in this  case  is\t whether  in\nmaking the  contract, brick  produced was  transferred as  a\nchattel for  consideration and\tthis has taken place in this\ncase. The  essence  of\tthe  contract  was,  therefore,\t the\ndelivery of the bricks after manufacturing. [164 A-H, 165 A-\nD]\n     (3) The  contract in  this case is contract of sale and\nnot a  works contract  and the\tassessee is  liable to\tsale\ntax. [165 E]\n     <a href=\"\/doc\/99755\/\">C. B. Gosain v. State of Orissa and Ors.<\/a> [1964] (2) SCR\n879, followed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1512 of<br \/>\n1971.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the\t Judgment and  order<br \/>\ndated the  8th\/9th December,  1970 of the Gujarat High Court<br \/>\nin Sales Tax Reference No. 3\/70.\n<\/p>\n<p>     S. T. Desai and M. N. Shroff for the Appellant.<br \/>\n     V. S. Desai, Vimal Dave and Miss Kailash Mehta, for the<br \/>\nRespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     GOSWAMI, J,  This is an appeal by special leave against<br \/>\nthe  Judgment  of  the\tGujarat\t High  Court  dated  8th\/9th<br \/>\nDecember, 1970.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The respondent  (hereinafter to  be  described  as\t the<br \/>\nassessee) entered  into a  contract with  the  Public  Works<br \/>\nDepartment of the Government of Gujarat on September 6, 1965<br \/>\nfor manufacture\t and supply of kiln-burnt bricks to the said<br \/>\nDepartment for\tthe construction  of  the  Capital  Project,<br \/>\nGhandhinagar. Large  quantities of  bricks were manufactured<br \/>\nand supplied  under the\t contract and the applicant received<br \/>\npayment for  the same  in accordance  with the agreed rates.<br \/>\nThe assessee  made an  application under  section 52  of the<br \/>\nBombay Sales  lax Act,\t1959, on  November 19,\t1967, to the<br \/>\nDeputy Commissioner  of Sales Tax, to determine the question<br \/>\nwhether the  said supplies  of bricks by the assessee to the<br \/>\nPublic Works  Department were  sales or\t works contract. The<br \/>\nDeputy Commissioner  held the  supplied\t of  bricks  by\t the<br \/>\nassessee  as  sales.  The  assessee  then  appealed  to\t the<br \/>\nTribunal against  that order.  The  Tribunal  following\t the<br \/>\nratio of  the decision\tof this Court in Chandra Bhan Gosain<br \/>\nv. The\tState of orissa and others(1) came to the conclusion<br \/>\nthat the  supplies of  bricks were sales. At the instance of<br \/>\nthe assessee,  the Tribunal  referred the following question<br \/>\nof law to the High Court:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;Whether on  the facts and in the circumstances of<br \/>\n     the case  the transaction\tenvisaged  by  the  contract<br \/>\n     entered into  by the  applicant with  the Public  Works<br \/>\n     Department of the Govern-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>(1) 14 S.T.C. 766: 119641 2 S.C.R. 879.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">160<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     ment  of\tGujarat\t on   6th  September  1965  for\t the<br \/>\n     manufacture and supply of kiln-burnt bricks to the said<br \/>\n     Department\t and  the  supply  of  bricks  to  the\tsaid<br \/>\n     Department in  terms of their running Bill No. XI dated<br \/>\n     28th October 1967 is a sale or a works contract ?<br \/>\n     The High  Court answered  the question in favour of the<br \/>\nassessee holding  that the transaction was a works contract.<br \/>\nIn coming  to that    conclusion  the  High  Court  hold  as<br \/>\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  In our  opinion the  decision of the Supreme Court<br \/>\n     in\t Chandra   Bhan\t Gosai&#8217;s  case\t(supra)\t is  clearly<br \/>\n     distinguishable on\t facts. The  contract in  that\tcase<br \/>\n     though prima  facie word  cd as  regards  the  relevant<br \/>\n     clauses in\t similar fashion  as  the  contract  in\t the<br \/>\n     instant case  is in  fact cast in a different mould and<br \/>\n     it would  be difficult  to hold  in the  light  of\t the<br \/>\n     special features  and characteristics  of the  contract<br \/>\n     with which\t we are\t concerned that\t the decision of the<br \/>\n     Supreme Court  in that case would completely govern the<br \/>\n     facts of this case. &#8220;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Mr. S.  T. Desai, the learned counsel for the appellant<br \/>\nsubmits that  the present  case is  squarely governed by the<br \/>\ndecision in  Chandra Bhan Gosain&#8217;s case (supra) and the High<br \/>\nCourt is wrong in holding to the contrary.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. V.  S. Desai learned counsel appearing on behalf of<br \/>\nthe assesee,  on the  other hand submits that the High Court<br \/>\nis right  in distinguishing  the present  case\tin  view  of<br \/>\ncertain distinguishing\tfeatures of  the contract With which<br \/>\nwe are concerned.\n<\/p>\n<p>     It\t is   well-settled   that   whether   a\t  particular<br \/>\ntransaction is\ta contract of sale or works contract depends<br \/>\nupon the  true construction  of all the terms and conditions<br \/>\nof the\tdocument when there is one. The question will depend<br \/>\nupon the intention of the parties executing the contract. As<br \/>\nwe have\t observed ill  our judgment  in <a href=\"\/doc\/236106\/\">State  of Gujarat v.<br \/>\nVariety Body  Builders<\/a>(1) which we have just delivered there<br \/>\nis no  standard formula\t by which  one can     distinguish a<br \/>\ncontract of  Sale from\tcontract for  work and\tlabour.\t The<br \/>\nquestion is  not always\t easy and  has for  all\t time  vexed<br \/>\njurists all over. The distinction between a contract of sale<br \/>\nof goods  and a contract for work and labour is often a fine<br \/>\none. A contract of sale is contract whose main object is the<br \/>\ntransfer  of  the  property  in\t and  the  delivery  of\t the<br \/>\npossession  of\t a  chattel  as\t a  chattel  to\t the  buyer.<br \/>\n(Halsbury&#8217;s Laws of England Third Edition Volume 34 page 6.)<br \/>\n     The contract with which we are concerned in this appeal<br \/>\nis found  in a tender for the supply of materials containing<br \/>\na memorandum  of the  conditions.  The\tnature\tof  work  is<br \/>\ndescribed as  manufacturing and\t supplying kiln-burn  bricks<br \/>\nfor construction  of Gandhinagar  . The question will depend<br \/>\nupon the true construction of the tender which on acceptance<br \/>\nis treated here as the contract containing all the terms and<br \/>\nconditions agreed  upon between\t the  two  parties.  In\t the<br \/>\ntender the  assessee stated  I\/We  chairman  Sabarmati\tRati<br \/>\nUdyog Sahakari Mandi<br \/>\n     (1) [1976] 3 S.C.R. 131<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">161<\/span><br \/>\nLtd., the undersigned do hereby tender for the supply of the<br \/>\nmaterials  described   in  the\tSchedule  attached  herewith<br \/>\nsubject to  the conditions  annexed. The  schedule described<br \/>\nmaterials  as  bricks  and  also  stated  quantities  to  be<br \/>\ndelivered&#8221;, and\t &#8220;rate at  which to be supplied&#8221;. The tender<br \/>\nis described  as &#8220;Supply  of Materials Tender&#8221;. Although the<br \/>\nabove nomenclature, by itself, is not decisive, we find that<br \/>\nthe same  is justified\tby the principal terms governing the<br \/>\ncontract to which we will presently refer. `<br \/>\n     &#8220;Clause 6:The  contractor\tshall  give  notice  to\t the<br \/>\n\t       Executive Engineer  or his  Assistant of\t his<br \/>\n\t       intention of  making    delivery of materials<br \/>\n\t       and  on\t the   materials   being   approved,<br \/>\n\t       receipt\tshall  be  granted  to\thim  by\t the<br \/>\n\t       Executive Engineer or by his Assistant and no<br \/>\n\t       materials which\tis not\tso approved shall be<br \/>\n\t       considered to have been delivered.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Clause7:  on  the\t completion  of\t  the  delivery\t  of<br \/>\n\t       materials, the  contractor shall be furnished<br \/>\n\t       with a  certificate   to that effect, but the<br \/>\n\t       delivery\t shall\t not  be  considered  to  be<br \/>\n\t       complete\t until\tthe  contractor\t shall\thave<br \/>\n\t       removed all  rejected  materials,  and  shall<br \/>\n\t       have  the   approved  materials,\t stacked  or<br \/>\n\t       placed in such position as may be pointed out<br \/>\n\t       to him.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Clause 8: The materials  to be supplied shall be of the<br \/>\n\t       best quality  and in  strict accordance\twith<br \/>\n\t       the specification  and the  contractor  shall<br \/>\n\t       receive payment\tfor such  materials only  as<br \/>\n\t       are approved  and  passed  by  the  Executive<br \/>\n\t       Engineer or  his\t Assistant    .\t Should\t the<br \/>\n\t       Executive Engineer  consider that  any of the<br \/>\n\t       materials  delivered  are  not  of  the\tbest<br \/>\n\t       quality are not in strict accordance with the<br \/>\n\t       specification but  that they  may be accepted<br \/>\n\t       and made\t use of\t it shall be within his full<br \/>\n\t       discretion to accept the same at such reduced<br \/>\n\t       rates as he may fix thereon.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Clause 9: In the event of the material being considered<br \/>\n\t       by the  officer in  the charge OF the work to<br \/>\n\t       be  inferior   to  that\t described  in\t the<br \/>\n\t       specifications,\tthe   contractor  shall\t  on<br \/>\n\t       demand in  writing, forthwith  to remove\t the<br \/>\n\t       same at\this own cost and in the event of his<br \/>\n\t       failure to  do so,  within such period as may<br \/>\n\t       be named\t by the\t Executive Engineer  or\t his<br \/>\n\t       Assistant, the  said officer  may  have\tsuch<br \/>\n\t       reject\ted    material\t removed    at\t the<br \/>\n\t       contractor&#8217;s risk and expense, the expense so<br \/>\n\t       incurred being  deducted from any sums due or<br \/>\n\t       which may become due to the contractor.<br \/>\n13-833\t Sup.C1\/76<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">162<\/span><br \/>\n    Clause 11: The  contractor\t shall\tsupply\tat  his\t own<br \/>\n\t       expense\tall  tools,  plants  and  implements<br \/>\n\t       required\t for   the  due\t fulfilment  of\t his<br \/>\n\t       contract, and  the materials  shall remain at<br \/>\n\t       his risk\t till the  date of  final deli very,<br \/>\n\t       except such portion as shall have been in the<br \/>\n\t       meantime removed\t for use  by  the  Executive<br \/>\n\t       Engineer or his Assistant.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Clause 13:This contract shall not be sublet without the<br \/>\n\t       written permission of the Executive Engineer.<br \/>\n\t       In the event of the contractor subletting his<br \/>\n\t       contract without\t such permission he shall be<br \/>\n\t       considered to have thereby committed a breach<br \/>\n\t       of  the\t contract  and\t shall\tforfeit\t his<br \/>\n\t       security deposit, and shall have no claim for<br \/>\n\t       any compensation for any loss that may accrue<br \/>\n\t       on account of the collection of the materials<br \/>\n\t       or engagements entered into.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Clause 16:No  guarantee can  be given  that  the  total<br \/>\n\t       number of quantities of material indicated in<br \/>\n\t       the Schedule  of the contract will be ordered<br \/>\n\t       during the period &#8211; of the contract. But, the<br \/>\n\t       Executive Engineer  shall purchase  from\t the<br \/>\n\t       contractor all such materials as are detailed<br \/>\n\t       in the  Schedule\t which\the  may\t require  to<br \/>\n\t       purchase during the period of the contract.<br \/>\n     Clause 17:No claim or claims made by the contractor for<br \/>\n\t       increased  rates\t on  the  grounds  that\t the<br \/>\n\t       market  or  other    rates  included  in\t the<br \/>\n\t       contract, have risen during the period of his<br \/>\n\t       contract, will  be recognized that is to say,<br \/>\n\t       the contractor  is bound\t to\tcomplete the<br \/>\n\t       work and\t or to\tsupply materials  at\t the<br \/>\n\t       rates mentioned in the contract.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Clause 22:ALL  rates  quoted  by  the  contractors\t arc<br \/>\n\t       inclusive of  sales tax\tand  the  contractor<br \/>\n\t       will pay the same himself,<br \/>\n     Clause24: The  contractor\t hereby\t declares  that\t the<br \/>\n\t       articles\t sold\tto  the\t  buyer\t under\tthis<br \/>\n\t       contract shall  be of  the best\tquality (and<br \/>\n\t       workmanship)  and   shall  be   strictly\t  in<br \/>\n\t       accordance  with\t  the\tspecifications\t and<br \/>\n\t       particulars contained  in  the  Schedule\t and<br \/>\n\t       accompaniments  hereof\tand  the  contractor<br \/>\n\t       hereby  guarantees  that\t the  said  articles<br \/>\n\t       would continue  to conform to the description<br \/>\n\t       and quality  aforesaid\tfor the period shown<br \/>\n\t       in the  Schedule from the data of delivery of<br \/>\n\t       the said\t articles to  the purchaser and that<br \/>\n\t       notwithstanding that fact that<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">163<\/span><br \/>\n\t       the  purchaser\tmay   have   inspected\t and<br \/>\n\t       approved, the  said articles  if\t during\t the<br \/>\n\t       aforesaid period\t stated in  the Schedule the<br \/>\n\t       said articles  be discovered   not to conform<br \/>\n\t       to the  description and\tquality aforesaid or<br \/>\n\t       have deteriorated  and the  decision  of\t the<br \/>\n\t       purchaser in  that behalf  shall be final and<br \/>\n\t       conclusive. The purchaser will be entitled to<br \/>\n\t       reject the  said\t articles  on  such  portion<br \/>\n\t       thereof as  may be  discovered not to conform<br \/>\n\t       to   the said description and quality on such<br \/>\n\t       rejection    the\t articles  will\t be  at\t the<br \/>\n\t       sellers&#8217; risk  and all  the provisions herein<br \/>\n\t       contained relating  to  rejection  of  goods,<br \/>\n\t       etc. shall apply. The cont   tractor shall if<br \/>\n\t       so called  upon to  do, replace\tthe articles<br \/>\n\t       etc. Or\tsuch portion  thereof as is rejected<br \/>\n\t       by the  purchaser  otherwise  the  contractor<br \/>\n\t       shall pay  to the  purchaser such  damages as<br \/>\n\t       may  arise  by  any  of\tthe  breach  of\t the<br \/>\n\t       condition herein\t contained,  nothing  herein<br \/>\n\t       contained shall prejudice  any other right of<br \/>\n\t       the  purchaser  in  that\t behalf\t under\tthis<br \/>\n\t       contract or otherwise.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     Amongst some of the general conditions of the contract,<br \/>\nwe find the following:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;Clause3: All  the\t  necessary  arrangements   of\t raw<br \/>\n\t       materials, equipment water, coal, labour etc.<br \/>\n\t       required for supply and manufacture of bricks<br \/>\n\t       shall have  to be  made by  the contractor at<br \/>\n\t       his own\tcost. The Government shall give only<br \/>\n\t       land for\t excavating soil  for manufacture of<br \/>\n\t       bricks to  the contractors  free of rent from<br \/>\n\t       the land reserved by the. Government for this<br \/>\n\t       purpose. The  land shall\t have to  be  handed<br \/>\n\t       over  back   to\tthe   Government  after\t the<br \/>\n\t       manufacturing of the brick work is completed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t       *    *\t *    *<br \/>\n     Clause 10:The  contractor shall  have no  right to sell<br \/>\n\t       these bricks,  brick  bats,  chharas  or\t any<br \/>\n\t       other mate rials manufactured on this site to<br \/>\n\t       any other private parties. If, however, it is<br \/>\n\t       found that  the materials  have been  sold by<br \/>\n\t       him to  private parties\tor other  bodies, he<br \/>\n\t       shall have  to pay  to Department at the rate<br \/>\n\t       of 10%  of the  value  of  materials  at\t the<br \/>\n\t       tender rates.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     While giving  the\tspecifications\tItem  No.  l  herein<br \/>\nrefers to  &#8220;manufacturing and\tsupplying  of 1\t Class kiln-<br \/>\nburnt bricks  of standard size including stacking in regular<br \/>\nconsignments etc. camp. as directed&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">164<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     Mr. V.   S.  Desai brings\tto our- notice the common as<br \/>\nwell as\t the distinguishing  features of  this case  and  of<br \/>\nChandra Bhan  Gosain&#8217;s case  (supra). According\t to him\t the<br \/>\ncommon features are the following:-\n<\/p>\n<p>     The land  was given  free for manufacture\tof bricks in<br \/>\nboth  the   cases.  The\t  materials  shall   remain  at\t the<br \/>\ncontractor`s risk  till\t the  date  of\tfinal  delivery.  in<br \/>\nChandra\t   Bhan\t     Gosain`s\t case (supra) the contractor<br \/>\ncould not  sell the bricks to third parties without previous<br \/>\npermission of  the company . Here also the contractor has no<br \/>\nright to  sell the  bricks etc.\t but if he does sell he will<br \/>\nhave. to  pay 10  percent   of the value of the materials at<br \/>\nthe  tender   rates.  Both   the  Clauses   are,  therefore,<br \/>\npermissive   Clauses and are substantially the same. In both<br \/>\nthe contracts  the contracting\tparties have  used the words<br \/>\nsuch as\t sell, purchase,  deliver or  rate of supply etc. in<br \/>\nthe contract.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In Chandra Bhan   Gosain`s\t case (supra) dealing;, with<br \/>\nthose  very  common  features  this  Court  observed\t  as<br \/>\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;lt may-  be presumed\t that it was understood that<br \/>\n     in quoting\t  his  rate for\t the bricks,  the  appellant<br \/>\n     would take\t into account\tthe free supply of earth for<br \/>\n     making the\t bricks. Again\twhat  was  supplied  to\t the<br \/>\n     company by the appellant was not the earth which he got<br \/>\n     from it  but bricks,  which, we  think,  are  something<br \/>\n     entirely different.  It could not have been in intended<br \/>\n     that the  property in  the earth  would continue in The<br \/>\n     company  in   spite  of  its  conversion  into  such  a<br \/>\n     different thing   as  bricks. Further  we find that the<br \/>\n     contract provided\tthat the  bricks would remain at the<br \/>\n     appellant`s risk  till delivery  to the  company.\tNow,<br \/>\n     obviously bricks  could not  remain at  the  appellants<br \/>\n     risk unless  they were  his  property.  Another  Clause<br \/>\n     provided that  the appellant  would not be able to sell<br \/>\n     the bricks\t to other  parties without the permission of<br \/>\n     the  company.  Apparently,\t it  was  contemplated\tthat<br \/>\n     without such  a provision the appellant could have sold<br \/>\n     the bricks\t to others.  Now &#8211;  he could  not  sell\t the<br \/>\n     bricks at all unless they belonged to him. Then we find<br \/>\n     that in  the tender  which the  appellant submitted and<br \/>\n     the acceptance  of which  made the contract, he stated,<br \/>\n     &#8220;I\/we hereby  tender for  the supply to the Hindus than<br \/>\n     Steel Private  Ltd. Of  the materials  described in the<br \/>\n     undermentioned memorandum. The memorandum described the<br \/>\n     materials as bricks, and also stated the &#8216;quantities to<br \/>\n     be delivered&#8217;  and the  &#8216;rate at which materials are to<br \/>\n     be supplied&#8217;.  All these  provisions plainly  show that<br \/>\n     the contract was for sale of bricks. If it were so, the<br \/>\n     property in  the bricks must have been in the appellant<br \/>\n     and passed from him to the subject-matter.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     From the  above extract, it is clear. that the decision<br \/>\nin Chandra  Bhan  Gosain&#8217;s  case  (supra)  will\t govern\t the<br \/>\npresent case where terms and conditions are almost identical<br \/>\nso far as relating to the relevant subject-matter.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">165<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     Mr. Desai,\t however, took\tpains to  point out  certain<br \/>\ndistinguishing\t  features  of\tthe  present  case  such  as<br \/>\nmaintenance of\tqualified Executive Engineer for supervision<br \/>\nof  work   subject  to\t removal  at  the  instance  of\t the<br \/>\nGovernment; restriction\t on employment\tof children under 12<br \/>\nyears; labour  welfare provisions regarding wages; workmen&#8217;s<br \/>\ncompensation, etc.;  provisions in relation to prevention of<br \/>\ncruelty to  animals; non-payment   of royalty for excavating<br \/>\nearth; use  of tube-wells  standing on\tthe Government\tsite<br \/>\nmanner of  execution of\t the  work  regarding  moulding\t and<br \/>\ndrying\tand   provision\t against   subletting  which   shall<br \/>\nconstitute a  breach of the contract resulting in forfeiture<br \/>\nof security deposit.\n<\/p>\n<p>     All the above terms relate to a stage in the process of<br \/>\nproper and  efficient manufacturing  of bricks\tand are\t not<br \/>\ninconsistent in\t a contract  of sale.  These  terms  do\t not<br \/>\nappear to  impinge on  the character  of the contract as one<br \/>\nfor sale  of the  bricks manufactured. The Government in its<br \/>\noverall interest  and  anxiety\tfor  general  welfare  could<br \/>\ninsist on compliance with certain beneficial legal measures.<br \/>\nIt could  also insist  on certain  terms which\twill  ensure<br \/>\nefficient production  of  the  material.  Provision  against<br \/>\nsubletting when\t the land  was given  free by  Government is<br \/>\nalso understandable.  All the  above features  do not negate<br \/>\nthe concept  of a  contract of\tsale of\t the bricks that are<br \/>\nultimately manufactured.  The true  test  in  this  case  is<br \/>\nwhether\t in  making  the  contract  to\tbrick  produced\t was<br \/>\ntransferred as\ta  chattel  for\t consideration\tand  we\t are<br \/>\nclearly of  opinion that  this has taken place in this case.<br \/>\nThe property  in the bricks was entirely of the assessee. He<br \/>\nhad not\t only to manufacture that but also to stack them for<br \/>\nfacilitating delivery.\tThe essence  of\t the  contract\twas,<br \/>\ntherefore. the delivery of the bricks after manufacture. The<br \/>\npresent case  cannot be\t distinguished from  the decision of<br \/>\nthe Chandra Bhan Gosain`s case (supra).\n<\/p>\n<p>     We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that the contract<br \/>\nin this case is a contract of sale and not a works contract.<br \/>\nThe assessee is, therefore liable to sales tax. The question<br \/>\nis answered  accordingly. The  High Court  was not  right in<br \/>\nanswering the  question\t in  favour  of\t the  assessee.\t The<br \/>\ndecision of  the High  Court is\t set aside.  The  appeal  is<br \/>\nallowed with costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>S.R.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">166<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Sales Tax, &#8230; vs M\/S. Sabarmati Reti Udyog &#8230; on 26 April, 1976 Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 197, 1976 SCR 158 Author: P Goswami Bench: Goswami, P.K. PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, GUJARAT Vs. RESPONDENT: M\/S. SABARMATI RETI UDYOG SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT26\/04\/1976 BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BENCH: [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-108267","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Commissioner Of Sales Tax, ... vs M\/S. Sabarmati Reti Udyog ... on 26 April, 1976 - 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-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-sabarmati-reti-udyog-on-26-april-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Sales Tax, ... vs M\/S. Sabarmati Reti Udyog ... on 26 April, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-sabarmati-reti-udyog-on-26-april-1976\" \/>\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=\"1976-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-21T08:32:22+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=\"18 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-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-sabarmati-reti-udyog-on-26-april-1976#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-sabarmati-reti-udyog-on-26-april-1976\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Sales Tax, &#8230; vs M\\\/S. Sabarmati Reti Udyog &#8230; on 26 April, 1976\",\"datePublished\":\"1976-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-21T08:32:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-sabarmati-reti-udyog-on-26-april-1976\"},\"wordCount\":2839,\"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\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-sabarmati-reti-udyog-on-26-april-1976#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-sabarmati-reti-udyog-on-26-april-1976\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-sabarmati-reti-udyog-on-26-april-1976\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Sales Tax, ... vs M\\\/S. Sabarmati Reti Udyog ... on 26 April, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1976-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-21T08:32:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-sabarmati-reti-udyog-on-26-april-1976#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-sabarmati-reti-udyog-on-26-april-1976\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-sabarmati-reti-udyog-on-26-april-1976#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Sales Tax, &#8230; vs M\\\/S. Sabarmati Reti Udyog &#8230; on 26 April, 1976\"}]},{\"@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 Of Sales Tax, ... vs M\/S. Sabarmati Reti Udyog ... on 26 April, 1976 - 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-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-sabarmati-reti-udyog-on-26-april-1976","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax, ... vs M\/S. Sabarmati Reti Udyog ... on 26 April, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-sabarmati-reti-udyog-on-26-april-1976","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1976-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-21T08:32:22+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-sabarmati-reti-udyog-on-26-april-1976#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-sabarmati-reti-udyog-on-26-april-1976"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax, &#8230; vs M\/S. Sabarmati Reti Udyog &#8230; on 26 April, 1976","datePublished":"1976-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-21T08:32:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-sabarmati-reti-udyog-on-26-april-1976"},"wordCount":2839,"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\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-sabarmati-reti-udyog-on-26-april-1976#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-sabarmati-reti-udyog-on-26-april-1976","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-sabarmati-reti-udyog-on-26-april-1976","name":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax, ... vs M\/S. Sabarmati Reti Udyog ... on 26 April, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1976-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-21T08:32:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-sabarmati-reti-udyog-on-26-april-1976#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-sabarmati-reti-udyog-on-26-april-1976"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-sabarmati-reti-udyog-on-26-april-1976#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax, &#8230; vs M\/S. Sabarmati Reti Udyog &#8230; on 26 April, 1976"}]},{"@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\/108267","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=108267"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108267\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=108267"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=108267"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=108267"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}