{"id":110216,"date":"1989-05-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1989-05-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-travancore-agency-vs-commissioner-of-on-2-may-1989"},"modified":"2017-02-21T00:51:49","modified_gmt":"2017-02-20T19:21:49","slug":"gujarat-travancore-agency-vs-commissioner-of-on-2-may-1989","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-travancore-agency-vs-commissioner-of-on-2-may-1989","title":{"rendered":"Gujarat Travancore Agency, &#8230; vs Commissioner Of &#8230; on 2 May, 1989"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Gujarat Travancore Agency, &#8230; vs Commissioner Of &#8230; on 2 May, 1989<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 1671, \t\t  1989 SCR  (2)1000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: R Pathak<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Pathak, R.S. (Cj)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nGUJARAT TRAVANCORE AGENCY, COCHIN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,KERALA, ERNAKULAM\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT02\/05\/1989\n\nBENCH:\nPATHAK, R.S. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nPATHAK, R.S. (CJ)\nKANIA, M.H.\n\nCITATION:\n 1989 AIR 1671\t\t  1989 SCR  (2)1000\n 1989 SCC  (3)\t52\t  JT 1989 (2)\t446\n 1989 SCALE  (1)1275\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1992 SC1762\t (10)\n\n\nACT:\n    Income Tax Act 1961: Section 271(1)(a) and 276C--Failure\nto  furnish returns--Penalty--Means rea--Not required to  be\nproved in proceedings under section 271(1)(a)--To be  estab-\nlished in proceedings under section 276-C.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t assessee  appellant  did not  file  its  income-tax\nreturns\t under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for  the  assessment\nyears  1965-66, 1966-67 within the statutory period. It\t was\nonly after notices under s. 139(2) of the Act were served on\nthe  assessee  the returns were filed. In the  said  circum-\nstances the Income Tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings\nagainst\t the assessee under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act for\t the\ntwo assessment years and imposed penalties.\n    The\t explanation of the assessee that he was  under\t the\nbona  fide belief that he had no assessable income and\thad,\ntherefore, not filed the returns earlier was not accepted by\nthe Income-tax Officer.\n    The\t Appellate  Assistant  Commissioner  dismissed\t the\nappeal, but in second appeal the Appellate Tribunal  allowed\nthe appeal holding that the Income Tax Officer had failed to\nbring on record any material to show that the explanation of\nthe  assessee  tendered before him in regard  t9  the  delay\nshould not be accepted, and that as the element of mens\t rea\nwas  required  to  be proved and had not  been\tproved,\t the\npenalties were liable to be cancelled.\n    The\t Appellate Tribunal at the instance of\tthe  Revenue\nreferred the question to the High Court, and a Full Bench of\nthe  High  Court  took the view that mens rea  need  not  be\nestablished before penalty is imposed under s. 271(1)(a)  of\nthe Act, and the Appellate Tribunal was therefore not justi-\nfied in cancelling the penalties levied for the two  assess-\nment years.\n    On\tthe  question whether the element of mens tea  is  a\nmandatory requirement before a penalty can be imposed  under\nsection 271(1 )(a) of\n1001\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961.\nDismissing the appeal, the Court.\n    HELD:  1.  A  penalty  may\tbe  imposed  under   section\n271(1)(a)  if the Income Tax Officer is satisfied  that\t any\nperson\thas without reasonable cause failed to\tfurnish\t the\nreturn\tof  total income. while s. 276C provides that  if  a\nperson\twilfully fails to furnish in due time the return  of\nincome required under s. 139(1) he shall be punishable\twith\nrigorous  imprisonment which may extend to one year or\twith\nfine.  It is, therefore, clear that in the former case\twhat\nwas  intended  was a civil obligation, while in\t the  latter\nwhat is imposed is a criminal sentence. [1003E-F]\n    2.\tThere  can be no dispute that having regard  to\t the\nprovisions of s. 276C, which speaks of wilful failure on the\npart  of defaulter and taking into consideration the  nature\nof  the penalty, which is punitive, no sentence can  be\t im-\nposed under that provision unless the element of mens rea is\nestablished. [1003G-H]\n    3. The creation of an offence by Statute proceeds on the\nassumption  that society suffers injury by the act or  omis-\nsion  of the defaulter and that a deterrent must be  imposed\nto discourage the repetition of the offence. [1004A-B]\n    4.\tUnless\tthere is something in the  language  of\t the\nstatute indicating the need to establish the element of mens\nrea  it is generally sufficient to prove that a\t default  in\ncomplying with the statute has occurred. [1004B-C]\n    5. In a proceeding under s. 271(1)(a), it seems that the\nintention  of  the legislature is to emphasise the  fact  of\nloss  of.  Revenue and to provide a remedy  for\t such  loss,\nalthough no doubt an element of coercion is present. in\t the\npenalty.  In this connection the terms in which the  penalty\nfalls to be measured is significant. [1004B]\n    Corpus Juris Secundum, volume 85, page 580, para.  1023,\nreferred to.\n    6. There is nothing in s. 271(1)(a) which requires\tthat\nmens  rea must be proved before penalty can be levied  under\nthat provision. [1004C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 63031 of<br \/>\n1975.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">1002<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    From  the  Judgment\t and Order dated  10.9.1974  of\t the<br \/>\nKerala High Court in Income Tax Reference Nos. 85 and 86  of<br \/>\n1972.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Soli  J.  Sorabjee, Udayu Lalit, D. Vidyanandan  and  M.<br \/>\nRaghuraman for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>D.V. Gauri Shankar and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondent.<br \/>\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n    PATHAK, CJ. These appeals, by certificate granted by the<br \/>\nHigh  Court of Kerala, are directed against the judgment  of<br \/>\nthat  High  Court answering the following  question  of\t law<br \/>\nreferred  to it in an Income-tax Reference in favour of\t the<br \/>\nRevenue and against the assessee:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;Whether,\t on  the facts and  in\tthe  circum-<br \/>\n\t      stances of the case, the Tribunal is justified<br \/>\n\t      in  law  in cancelling  the  penalties  levied<br \/>\n\t      under  s.\t 271(1)(a) of  the  Income-tax\tAct,<br \/>\n\t      1961,  for the assessment years  1965-66,\t and<br \/>\n\t      1966-67?&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>    The\t assessee is a registered firm trading in hill\tpro-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>duce. The assessee did not file its income-tax return  under<br \/>\nthe  Income-tax\t Act, 1961 for the assessment  year  1965-66<br \/>\nwithin\tthe  statutory period, that is to say  by  30  June,<br \/>\n1965, and instead applied for time to file the return.\tTime<br \/>\nwas granted up to 31.August, 1966. Yet no return was  filed.<br \/>\nIt  was\t only after notice under s. 139(2) of  the  Act\t was<br \/>\nserved on the assessee on 22 September, 1967 that it filed a<br \/>\nreturn\ton the next day. Similarly for the  assessment\tyear<br \/>\n1966-67 no return was filed upto 30 June, 1966. No  applica-<br \/>\ntion  for  extension of time was made  either.\tWhen  notice<br \/>\nunder s. 139(2) was served on the assessee on 21 June,\t1966<br \/>\nit  filed  a return on 23 September, 1967.  In\tthe  circum-<br \/>\nstances,  the Income-tax Officer initiated penalty  proceed-<br \/>\nings against the assessee under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act\t for<br \/>\nthe two assessment years. A sum of Rs. 14,784 was levied  as<br \/>\npenalty\t for  the assessment year 1965-66 and a sum  of\t Rs.<br \/>\n11,447 was imposed as penalty for the assessment year  1966-\n<\/p>\n<p>67.  The explanation of the assessee that he was  under\t the<br \/>\nbona  fide belief that he had no assessable income and\thad,<br \/>\ntherefore, not filed the returns earlier was not accepted by<br \/>\nthe  Income-tax\t Officer.  In appeal  before  the  Appellate<br \/>\nAssistant  Commissioner of Income Tax, the assessee did\t not<br \/>\npress  the ground that there was no deliberate\tomission  on<br \/>\nhis part to file the returns and that therefore s. 271(1)(a)<br \/>\nof  the Act was not attracted. In second appeal\t before\t the<br \/>\nIncome-tax Appellate Tribunal permission was granted to\t the<br \/>\nassessee to raise the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">1003<\/span><br \/>\nground.\t The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeals  holding<br \/>\nthat  the Income-tax Officer had failed to bring  on  record<br \/>\nany  material to show that the explanation of  the  assessee<br \/>\ntendered  before  him in regard to the delay should  not  be<br \/>\naccepted,  and that as the element of mens rea was  required<br \/>\nto  be\tproved and had not been proved, the  penalties\twere<br \/>\nliable to be cancelled.\n<\/p>\n<p>    At\tthe instance of the Revenue the\t Appellate  Tribunal<br \/>\nreferred the question set forth earlier to the High Court of<br \/>\nKerala.\t It may be mentioned that another question was\talso<br \/>\nreferred, which related to the Appellate Tribunal entertain-<br \/>\ning the additional ground of appeal, but the appeals  before<br \/>\nus  are not concerned with that question. The question\twith<br \/>\nwhich  we are concerned was referred to a Full Bench of\t the<br \/>\nHigh Court, and the High Court has taken the view that\tmens<br \/>\nrea need not be established before penalty is imposed  under<br \/>\ns. 271(1)(a) of the Act, and that, therefore, the  Appellate<br \/>\nTribunal  was  not  justified in  cancelling  the  penalties<br \/>\nlevied for the two assessment years.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Learned  counsel for the assessee has addressed  an\t ex-<br \/>\nhaustive argument before us on the question whether a penal-<br \/>\nty  imposed under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act:involves the\tele-<br \/>\nment  of mens rea and in support of his submission  that  it<br \/>\ndoes  he has placed before us several cases decided by\tthis<br \/>\nCourt  and the High Courts in Order to demonstrate that\t the<br \/>\nproceedings by way of penalty under s. 271(1)(a) of the\t Act<br \/>\nare quasi criminal in nature and that therefore the  element<br \/>\nof mens rea is a mandatory requirement before a penalty\t can<br \/>\nbe imposed under s. 271(1)(a). We are relieved of the neces-<br \/>\nsity  of referring to all those decisions. Indeed,  many  of<br \/>\nthem  were considered by the High Court and are referred  to<br \/>\nin  the\t judgment under appeal. It is sufficient for  us  to<br \/>\nrefer to s. 271(1)(a), which provides that a penalty may  be<br \/>\nimposed\t if  the Income Tax Officer is\tsatisfied  that\t any<br \/>\nperson\thas without reasonable cause failed to\tfurnish\t the<br \/>\nreturn\tof total income, and to s. 276C which provides\tthat<br \/>\nif a person wilfully fails to furnish in due time the return<br \/>\nof  income required under s. 139(1), he shall be  punishable<br \/>\nwith  rigorous imprisonment for a term which may  extend  to<br \/>\none  year or with fine. It is clear that in the former\tcase<br \/>\nwhat  is intended is a civil obligation while in the  latter<br \/>\nwhat  is  imposed is a criminal sentence. There\t can  be  no<br \/>\ndispute\t that  having regard to the provisions of  s.  276C,<br \/>\nwhich speaks of wilful failure on the part of the  defaulter<br \/>\nand  taking  into consideration the nature of  the  penalty,<br \/>\nwhich  is  punitive, no sentence can be imposed\t under\tthat<br \/>\nprovision  unless the element of &#8216; mens rea is\testablished.<br \/>\nIn  most cases of criminal liability, the intention  of\t the<br \/>\nLegislature is that the penalty should serve as a deterrent.<br \/>\nThe<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">1004<\/span><br \/>\ncreation of an offence by Statute proceeds on the assumption<br \/>\nthat  society suffers injury by and the act or\tomission  of<br \/>\nthe  defaulter and that a deterrent must be imposed to\tdis-<br \/>\ncourage\t the  repetition of the offence. In the\t case  of  a<br \/>\nproceeding  under s. 271(1)(a), however, it seems  that\t the<br \/>\nintention  of  the legislature is to emphasise the  fact  of<br \/>\nloss  of  Revenue  and to provide a remedy  for\t such  loss,<br \/>\nalthough  no doubt an element of coercion is present in\t the<br \/>\npenalty.  In this connection the terms in which the  penalty<br \/>\nfalls  to be measured is significant. Unless there is  some-<br \/>\nthing in the language of the statute indicating the need  of<br \/>\nestablish the element of mens tea it is generally sufficient<br \/>\nto  prove that a default in complying with the\tstatute\t has<br \/>\noccurred.  In our opinion, there is nothing in s.  271(1)(a)<br \/>\nwhich  requires that mens tea must be proved before  penalty<br \/>\ncan be levied under that provision. We are supported by\t the<br \/>\nstatement  in  Corpus Juris Secundum, volume 85,  page\t580,<br \/>\nparagraph 1023:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;A penalty imposed for a tax delinquency is  a<br \/>\n\t      civil obligation, remedial and coercive in its<br \/>\n\t      nature, and is far different from the  penalty<br \/>\n\t      for  a crime or a fine or forfeiture  provided<br \/>\n\t      as punishment for the violation of criminal or<br \/>\n\t      penal laws.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>    Accordingly,  we hold that the element of mens  rea\t was<br \/>\nnot  required to be proved in the proceedings taken  by\t the<br \/>\nIncome tax Officer under s. 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax\t Act<br \/>\nagainst\t the assessee for the assessment years\t1965-66\t and<br \/>\n1966-67.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the result the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>N.V.K.\t\t\t\t      Appeals failed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">1005<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Gujarat Travancore Agency, &#8230; vs Commissioner Of &#8230; on 2 May, 1989 Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 1671, 1989 SCR (2)1000 Author: R Pathak Bench: Pathak, R.S. (Cj) PETITIONER: GUJARAT TRAVANCORE AGENCY, COCHIN Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,KERALA, ERNAKULAM DATE OF JUDGMENT02\/05\/1989 BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) KANIA, M.H. [&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-110216","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>Gujarat Travancore Agency, ... vs Commissioner Of ... on 2 May, 1989 - 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\/gujarat-travancore-agency-vs-commissioner-of-on-2-may-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gujarat Travancore Agency, ... vs Commissioner Of ... on 2 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-travancore-agency-vs-commissioner-of-on-2-may-1989\" \/>\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=\"1989-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-20T19:21:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-travancore-agency-vs-commissioner-of-on-2-may-1989#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-travancore-agency-vs-commissioner-of-on-2-may-1989\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gujarat Travancore Agency, &#8230; vs Commissioner Of &#8230; on 2 May, 1989\",\"datePublished\":\"1989-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-20T19:21:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-travancore-agency-vs-commissioner-of-on-2-may-1989\"},\"wordCount\":1204,\"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\\\/gujarat-travancore-agency-vs-commissioner-of-on-2-may-1989#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-travancore-agency-vs-commissioner-of-on-2-may-1989\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-travancore-agency-vs-commissioner-of-on-2-may-1989\",\"name\":\"Gujarat Travancore Agency, ... vs Commissioner Of ... on 2 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1989-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-20T19:21:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-travancore-agency-vs-commissioner-of-on-2-may-1989#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-travancore-agency-vs-commissioner-of-on-2-may-1989\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-travancore-agency-vs-commissioner-of-on-2-may-1989#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gujarat Travancore Agency, &#8230; vs Commissioner Of &#8230; on 2 May, 1989\"}]},{\"@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":"Gujarat Travancore Agency, ... vs Commissioner Of ... on 2 May, 1989 - 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\/gujarat-travancore-agency-vs-commissioner-of-on-2-may-1989","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gujarat Travancore Agency, ... vs Commissioner Of ... on 2 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-travancore-agency-vs-commissioner-of-on-2-may-1989","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1989-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-20T19:21:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-travancore-agency-vs-commissioner-of-on-2-may-1989#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-travancore-agency-vs-commissioner-of-on-2-may-1989"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gujarat Travancore Agency, &#8230; vs Commissioner Of &#8230; on 2 May, 1989","datePublished":"1989-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-20T19:21:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-travancore-agency-vs-commissioner-of-on-2-may-1989"},"wordCount":1204,"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\/gujarat-travancore-agency-vs-commissioner-of-on-2-may-1989#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-travancore-agency-vs-commissioner-of-on-2-may-1989","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-travancore-agency-vs-commissioner-of-on-2-may-1989","name":"Gujarat Travancore Agency, ... vs Commissioner Of ... on 2 May, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1989-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-20T19:21:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-travancore-agency-vs-commissioner-of-on-2-may-1989#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-travancore-agency-vs-commissioner-of-on-2-may-1989"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-travancore-agency-vs-commissioner-of-on-2-may-1989#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gujarat Travancore Agency, &#8230; vs Commissioner Of &#8230; on 2 May, 1989"}]},{"@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\/110216","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=110216"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110216\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110216"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110216"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110216"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}