{"id":111661,"date":"2011-11-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-10-november-2011"},"modified":"2015-05-04T01:33:09","modified_gmt":"2015-05-03T20:03:09","slug":"commissioner-vs-unknown-on-10-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-10-november-2011","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs Unknown on 10 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner vs Unknown on 10 November, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Akil Kureshi, Gokani,<\/div>\n<pre>  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n    \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/943\/2010\t 6\/ 6\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 943 of 2010\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER\nOF INCOME TAX-II - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nGUJARAT\nOPTICAL COMMUNICATION LTD - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMRS\nMAUNA M BHATT for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nRULE SERVED BY DS for Opponent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 06\/09\/2011 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI)<\/p>\n<p>1.\tRevenue<br \/>\nhas proposed following questions of law for determination  of this<br \/>\nCourt  in the present  Tax Appeal  which arises  out of  Order dated<br \/>\n11th<br \/>\n September 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,<br \/>\nAhmedabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as &#8220;the<br \/>\nTribunal&#8221;).\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Whether the Appellate<br \/>\nTribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed<br \/>\nby CIT(A) deleting  the disallowance of Rs 62,68,900\/- out of<br \/>\ninterest expenses and PF ?\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThis<br \/>\nCourt decided entire  bunch of Appeals on the identical questions of<br \/>\nlaw being Tax Appeal No. 1474 of 2010 and connected<br \/>\nAppeals.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tIt<br \/>\nemerges that despite due service of the notice none has appeared to<br \/>\ncontest the present appeal. Accordingly learned counsel for the<br \/>\nrevenue  has been heard and substantial questions of law formulated<br \/>\nand mentioned hereinabove is decided.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tIn<br \/>\nthis Tax Appeal the order of the Tribunal  dated 11th<br \/>\nSeptember 2009 is challenged in  the following factual background.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.1\tFor<br \/>\nthe Assessment year 2002-2003 the Assessing Officer made disallowance<br \/>\nof proportionate interest amounting to         Rs 62,68,900\/- after<br \/>\ndisallowing  the aforementioned  proportionate interest  free<br \/>\nadvances.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tWhen<br \/>\nthis was challenged before the CIT(A) it deleted the disallowance of<br \/>\nRs 62,68,900\/- .\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tThe<br \/>\nrevenue carried  this issue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held<br \/>\nthat even if the addition is confirmed this would remain a case of<br \/>\nloss  and thus in the light of the instruction of the CBDT Circular<br \/>\nNo. 5 of 2008,  the revenue ought not to have filed an appeal before<br \/>\nthe Tribunal. The Tribunal also followed  the order of Delhi<br \/>\nHigh Court in the case of CIT<br \/>\nV. Mangalam Ricinus Ltd.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2008) 174 Taxman 186 (Delhi).\n<\/p>\n<p>In other words, the Tribunal was of the opinion that even if the<br \/>\norder of the Assessing Officer was to be upheld, the income of the<br \/>\nassessee would be negative and the<br \/>\ntax effect would be low and therefore, it declined to entertain the<br \/>\nappeal on the ground of low tax effect.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tThe<br \/>\nimpugned order is thus challenged by the revenue  proposing<br \/>\naforementioned substantial questions.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tHeard<br \/>\nlearned counsel Mrs Mauna Bhatt for the revenue  and also scrutinised<br \/>\nthe orders of the adjudicating authorities.  Learned counsel has<br \/>\ncandidly pointed out that this Court  has decided group of tax<br \/>\nappeals being Tax Appeal No. 1601\/09 and connected appeals in the<br \/>\nfollowing manner :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;34.\tFrom the above<br \/>\ncirculars, two fold questions arise. Firstly, we are required to<br \/>\nanswer the question if circulars ranging from 27.3.2000 till<br \/>\n16.7.2007, debarred the department from filing appeals in cases of<br \/>\nnegative income of the assessee. The second aspect of the matter is<br \/>\nwhether when the Board in its subsequent circular dated 15.5.2008<br \/>\nprovided that &#8221; Similarly, in loss cases notional tax effect<br \/>\nshould be taken into account&#8221;, did the Board desire for the<br \/>\nfirst time that the appeals be permitted to be presented in cases of<br \/>\nloss only on and from 15.4.2008 and not before. In other words, the<br \/>\nquestion is whether above quoted portion in the Board circular dated<br \/>\n15.4.2008 is clarificatory in nature or not?\n<\/p>\n<p>35.\tClose perusal of the<br \/>\ncirculars issued prior to 15.5.2008 noted  hereinabove,  would reveal<br \/>\nthat such circulars provided for different conditions on which the<br \/>\nRevenue could prefer appeals before the Tribunal and Courts which<br \/>\nincluded the monetary limits specified from time to time. Nowhere do<br \/>\nthese circulars, specify that irrespective of the degree of<br \/>\ndivergence between the Assessing Officer and CIT merely because in<br \/>\neither case the assessee is held to have suffered loss, appeal before<br \/>\nthe Tribunal would not be presented. Starting with circular dated<br \/>\n27.3.2000, we find that the said circular provided for limits for<br \/>\npreferring appeals to the Tribunal, reference before the High Court<br \/>\nand appeal before the Supreme Court as long as the tax effect<br \/>\nexceeded Rs.1,00,000\/-, Rs.2,00,000\/- and Rs.5,00,000\/- respectively.<br \/>\nParagraph 3 of the said circular specified the categories where<br \/>\nirrespective of the revenue effect, such appeals could be pursued.<br \/>\nThe term &#8221; tax effect&#8221; specified in circular dated<br \/>\n27.3.2000 is nowhere defined and explained in any of the preceding<br \/>\nand succeeding circulars. We must, therefore, understand this term in<br \/>\nthe context of the intention of the Board in limiting the Tax<br \/>\nAppeals.\n<\/p>\n<p>36.\tWe must also remind<br \/>\nourselves that Board circulars are not statutes though by virtue of<br \/>\nSection 268A, it may have certain statutory force. Common thread<br \/>\nrunning through all the circulars presented before us is that the<br \/>\nBoard desired that subject to certain exceptions, Tax Appeals in<br \/>\nwhich effect of tax is lower than the prescribed limit such appeals<br \/>\nwhether before the Tribunal, High Court or the Supreme Court, should<br \/>\nnot be presented. For example in Circular dated 27.3.2000 it is<br \/>\nprovided that appeals will be filed only in cases where tax effect<br \/>\nexceeds the revised monetary limits i.e.Rs.2,00,000\/- for the appeal<br \/>\nto be file before the appellate Tribunal Rs.4,00,000\/- for the appeal<br \/>\nor reference before the High Court and Rs.10,00,000\/- in case of<br \/>\nappeals to the Supreme Court. Such limit came to be revised by<br \/>\nCircular dated 24.10.2005 which provided for monetary limits of tax<br \/>\neffect of Rs.2,00,000\/-, Rs.4,00,000\/- and Rs.10,00,000\/- for appeals<br \/>\nto the Tribunal, High Court and the Supreme Court respectively. None<br \/>\nof these circulars provided that by virtue of assessment of loss by<br \/>\nthe Assessing Officer, different from that declared by the assessee,<br \/>\neven if the possible tax effect is huge, no appeals should be<br \/>\npresented before the Tribunal, High Court or the Supreme Court;<br \/>\nmerely because ultimately the income of the assessee was negative.<br \/>\nWe have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that none of the<br \/>\ncirculars presented before us intended to bar the tax appeals even<br \/>\nwhere potential tax effect would be enormous, simply because in the<br \/>\nyear in question, the assessee had earned negative income.\n<\/p>\n<p>37.\tThe issue can be looked<br \/>\nfrom a slightly different angle. In absence of the Board&#8217;s circulars<br \/>\nissued, which now can be stated to be covered under Section 268A of<br \/>\nthe Act, there are no limitations on Revenue carrying the issue in<br \/>\nappeal either before the appellate Tribunal, the High Court, the<br \/>\nSupreme Court. To hold that a particular appeal is not maintainable<br \/>\nby virtue of the limitations imposed by the Board in its circular,<br \/>\nsuch limitation must be traced into circular itself. In other words<br \/>\nunless and until the appeal is found to be opposed to the directives<br \/>\nissued by the Board in its different circulars prevailing from time<br \/>\nto time, such an appeal cannot be categorized as not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>38.\tCirculars of the Board<br \/>\nnowhere provide that in case of return of loss automatically per se<br \/>\nirrespective of difference in the Assessing Officer&#8217;s perception and<br \/>\nthat of the CIT (Appeals) of the computation of loss, further appeal<br \/>\nwould be shut out.\n<\/p>\n<p>39.\tThe contention that by<br \/>\nvirtue  of subsequent clarifications contained in circulars dated<br \/>\n15.5.2008 and 9.2.2011 the position prevailing prior to such<br \/>\ncirculars gets amplified and that therefore in cases of loss returns<br \/>\nthe Board&#8217;s instructions did not envisage further appeal also does<br \/>\nnot impress us. We may recall that in the circular dated 15.5.2008 it<br \/>\nis provided that in the case of loss, notional tax effect should be<br \/>\ntaken into account. This clarification to our mind, contained in<br \/>\ncircular dated 15.5.2008 and absence of any such clarification in the<br \/>\nprevious circulars, is of no consequence.  Such a clause can, at the<br \/>\nbest, be seen as clarificatory declaration by the Board to put the<br \/>\ncontroversy beyond any shadow of doubt or debate. It cannot, however,<br \/>\nbe stated that only on and from 15.5.2008 the Board desired that on<br \/>\nthe basis of notional tax effect in cases of loss the appeals should<br \/>\nbe filed. In the previous circulars to reiterate, no such intention<br \/>\nemerges. Only because clarification came in the subsequent circular<br \/>\ndated 15.5.2008, would   not  mean that previously the Board desired<br \/>\nthat such appeals should be filtered out.\n<\/p>\n<p>xxxxx<\/p>\n<p>43.\tIn the result common<br \/>\nquestion, framed in all appeals, is answered in favour of the Revenue<br \/>\nand against the assessees. It is held that merely because even as per<br \/>\nthe Assessing Officer&#8217;s order, ultimately income of the assessee is<br \/>\nnegative, the Revenue&#8217;s appeal before the appellate Tribunal would<br \/>\nnot be barred by the Board&#8217;s circular under Section 268A of the Act.<br \/>\nIt is, however, clarified that the notional tax effect would have to<br \/>\nbe above the limits prescribed by the Board from time to time for<br \/>\npresentation of such appeals. In all these cases since it is stated<br \/>\nthat the notional tax effect would be higher than the limits<br \/>\nprescribed by the Board in different circulars, we are of the view<br \/>\nthat the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the Revenue&#8217;s<br \/>\nappeals as being not maintainable. We may record that none of the<br \/>\nappeals came to be decided by the Tribunal on merits.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tAs<br \/>\nthe question proposed in the present Tax Appeal is identical  this<br \/>\nCourt has no reason to hold otherwise  than already held in the Tax<br \/>\nAppeal mentioned hereinabove. Here also as is pointed out by this<br \/>\nCourt,  notional tax effect is above the limit prescribed by the<br \/>\nBoard from time to time for presentation of the appeal and therefore,<br \/>\nwhen it is pointed out that the limit prescribed Board in different<br \/>\ncircular  even when considered cumulatively, the notional tax effect<br \/>\nin the  instant case  would be higher than the  limit  prescribed and<br \/>\ntherefore, it can be said that the Tribunal was in error in<br \/>\ndismissing the revenue appeal being not maintainable. It is also to<br \/>\nbe noted that the Tribunal has not decided the appeal on merit but<br \/>\nonly on the ground of low tax effect,  the same came to be dismissed.<br \/>\nResultantly, this Tax Appeal is allowed by quashing the judgment of<br \/>\nthe Tribunal dated  11th September 2009 by answering  the<br \/>\nquestion formulated by this   Court while issuing the notice for<br \/>\nfinal disposal  in favour of the revenue.\n<\/p>\n<p>10,\tThe<br \/>\nproceedings are remanded to the Tribunal for consideration of the<br \/>\nAppeal on merits. This Tax Appeal is disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t(Akil<br \/>\nKureshi,J.)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t(Ms<br \/>\nSonia Gokani,J.)<\/p>\n<p>mary\/\/<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Commissioner vs Unknown on 10 November, 2011 Author: Akil Kureshi, Gokani, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/943\/2010 6\/ 6 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 943 of 2010 ========================================================= COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II &#8211; Appellant(s) Versus GUJARAT OPTICAL COMMUNICATION LTD &#8211; Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-111661","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Commissioner vs Unknown on 10 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-10-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner vs Unknown on 10 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-10-november-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-03T20:03:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-10-november-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-10-november-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs Unknown on 10 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-03T20:03:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-10-november-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1669,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-10-november-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-10-november-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-10-november-2011\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Unknown on 10 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-03T20:03:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-10-november-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-10-november-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-10-november-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Unknown on 10 November, 2011\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner vs Unknown on 10 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-10-november-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs Unknown on 10 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-10-november-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-03T20:03:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-10-november-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-10-november-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs Unknown on 10 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-03T20:03:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-10-november-2011"},"wordCount":1669,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-10-november-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-10-november-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-10-november-2011","name":"Commissioner vs Unknown on 10 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-03T20:03:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-10-november-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-10-november-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-10-november-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs Unknown on 10 November, 2011"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/111661","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=111661"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111661\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=111661"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=111661"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=111661"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}