{"id":116411,"date":"1976-03-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1976-03-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/homely-industries-vs-the-sales-tax-officer-sector-v-on-24-march-1976"},"modified":"2015-11-20T21:32:23","modified_gmt":"2015-11-20T16:02:23","slug":"homely-industries-vs-the-sales-tax-officer-sector-v-on-24-march-1976","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/homely-industries-vs-the-sales-tax-officer-sector-v-on-24-march-1976","title":{"rendered":"Homely Industries vs The Sales Tax Officer, Sector V, … on 24 March, 1976"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Homely Industries vs The Sales Tax Officer, Sector V, … on 24 March, 1976<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 2086, \t\t 1976 SCR (3) 862<\/div>\n
Author: P Goswami<\/div>\n
Bench: Goswami, P.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nHOMELY INDUSTRIES\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE SALES TAX OFFICER, SECTOR V, KANPUR\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT24\/03\/1976\n\nBENCH:\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\nBENCH:\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\n\nCITATION:\n 1976 AIR 2086\t\t  1976 SCR  (3) 862\n 1976 SCC  (3) 705\n\n\nACT:\n     U.P. Sales\t Tax  Act-Secs.\t 7C(3)-8(1)(2)-Liability  of\nheirs and  legal representatives  of  a\t deceased  assessee-\nWhether service of a notice condition precedent, to recovery\nproceedings.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Rashidul Hasan  was a  dealer registered under the U.P.\nSales Tax  Act. During\tthe lifetime  of Rashidul Hasan, the\nSales Tax  Officer sent a notice to him asking him to appear\nand to\tproduce all  books of  account, cash  memos,  bills,\nreceipts,  bank\t  pass\tbooks,\t statement  of\t income\t and\nexpenditure which  he may  desire to  produce.\tHe  died  in\nDecember, 1968\tleaving behind three adult sons. At the time\nof  his\t  death\t assessment   proceedings  relating  to\t the\nassessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 were pending before the\nSales Tax  Officer. After  the death  of Rashidul Hasan, the\nbusiness was continued by his sons by forming a partnership.\nHis legal  representatives obtained a number of adjournments\nin order to make an effective representation. After granting\n6 adjournments\tthe  7th  Application  for  adjournment\t was\nrejected by  the Sales\tTax Officer and an ex-parte order of\nassessment was\tmade in\t April, 1969.  The Sales Tax Officer\nthereafter initiated  recovery proceedings  in pursuance  of\nthe assessment\torders and  the\t demand\t was  sought  to  be\nrealised from the sons of the deceased by coercive measure.\n     Section 7C(3)  of the  Act provides that where a person\nhaving furnished  a return  dies and the assessing authority\nmay determine the turnover of such person and assess the tax\npayable by  him on  the basis  of such determination and for\nthis  purpose\tmay  by\t  notice  require   from  the  legal\nrepresentative\tof   the  deceased   person  any   accounts,\ndocuments  or  other  evidence\twhich  he  might  under\t the\nprovisions of  this Act\t require from  the deceased  person.\nSection 8(1)  provides that  the tax  assessed under the Act\nshall be  paid within  such time not being less than 15 days\nfrom the  date of  service of  the notice  of assessment. It\nfurther provides  that in  default of  such payment the same\nmay be\trecovered as  arrears of land revenue. The appellant\nfiled two  Writ Petitions before the High Court of Allahabad\nchallenging the\t orders\t and  recovery\tcertificates  issued\nunder section  8 of  the Act.  The High\t Court rejected\t the\napplication.\n     On appeal by certificate under Article 133(1)(a) of the\nConstitution, the appellant contended:\n\t  (1)  The assessment orders are invalid as they are\n\t       made against  a\tdead  person,  and  that  no\n\t       notice  as  required  by\t section  7C(3)\t was\n\t       served on the legal representative to produce\n\t       accounts, documents and other evidence.\n\t  (2)  A  proper   and\tvalid\tnotice\twhich  is  a\n\t       condition  precedent   for  fixing  liability\n\t       under section  8 has  not been  served on the\n\t       legal  representatives\tand  therefore\t the\n\t       recovery proceedings were illegal.\n^\n     HELD :  (1)  The  notice  was  already  served  on\t the\ndeceased when  he was\talive. It was not necessary to serve\nthe notice  on legal representatives again under Sec. 7C(3).\nThe legal  representatives would  have been  entitled  to  a\nnotice to produce documents and evidence if the deceased had\nnot earlier  been served  with a  similar notice  during his\nlife time.  The orders\tof assessment  cannot, therefore, he\nheld to\t be invalid  on account of non-service of notice for\nproduction of  documents upon  the legal  representatives in\nthis case.  Besides the\t legal representatives were aware of\nthe proceedings\t and took  several adjournments\t and if they\ndid not\t choose to  produce any\t further evidence  it\t was\nentirely their fault. [865 E, G, 866 A-B]\n863\n     (2) It  is clear  that before  a certificate proceeding\ncan be\tinstituted under  section 8  a notice  of demand  is\ncondition  precedent.  There  can  be  no  recovery  without\nservice of  a demand notice. It is admitted that such notice\nhas not been served on the legal representatives. That being\nthe position,  the recovery proceedings are not maintainable\nin law\tand are invalid and the same along with certificates\nare liable to be quashed. [867 C-D]\n     Sahu Rajeshwar  Nath v.  Income-Tax Officer  I.C.\tWard\nMeerut,<\/a> 72 I.T.R. 6971 S.C. distinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1176-
\n77 of 1971.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and order dated the 17th March, 1970
\nof the\tAllahabad Court\t in Civil Misc. Writ Nos. 2681-82 of
\n1968.\n<\/p>\n
     S. C.  Manchanda, J.  D. Jain,  Ujjal  Singh  and\tMiss
\nKawaljit Miglani for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     G. N. Dikshit and O. P. Rana for the Respondent.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     GOSWAMI, J.-These\tare two\t appeals on  certificates by
\nthe High Court of Allahabad from the judgments and orders of
\nMarch 17, 1970.\n<\/p>\n
     The facts may briefly be stated:\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant Homely Industries is registered under the
\nUttar Pradesh  Sales Tax  Act (briefly\tthe Act).  Its\tsole
\nproprietor was\tone Rashidul  Hasan. He died on December 10,
\n1968, leaving  behind three  adult sons,  namely, Syed Mohd.
\nIbrahim,  Syed\tMohd.  Ismail  and  Syed  Mohd.\t Ilias.\t The
\nbusiness was carried on by Rashidul Hasan under the name and
\nstyle of  Homely Industries.  At the  time of  his death the
\nassessment proceedings\trelating  to  the  assessment  years
\n1960-61 and  1961-62  were  pending  before  the  Sales\t Tax
\nOfficer\t on   remand   from   the   Assistant\tCommissioner
\n(Judicial), Sales  Tax, in  pursuance  of  his\torder  dated
\nOctober 26, 1966.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  said that  after the death of Rashidul Hasan the
\nbusiness was  continued by the sons by forming a partnership
\nand Nazir  Husain continued  as the  munim and also appeared
\nbefore the Sales Tax Officer in the pending proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
     On December 19, 1968, Syed Mohd. Ibrahim, as legal heir
\nand  partner,  sent  an\t application  through  Nazir  Husain
\ninforming the  Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur, in connection with
\nthe two\t assessment proceedings\t that his father had expired
\non December  10, 1968  and that it was not possible for them
\nto proceed with the case on that day.\n<\/p>\n
     It appears\t that the  Sales Tax Officer during the life
\ntime of\t Rashidul Hasan\t had addressed\ta notice  to  Homely
\nIndustries calling  upon it  to appear\tin person or through
\npleader, or  authorised representative on November 29, 1968,
\nand to\tproduce all  books of  accounts, cash  memos, bills,
\nreceipts,  bank\t  pass-books,  statement   of\tincome\t and
\nexpenditure and\t other documents  which\t it  may  desire  to
\nproduce in  connection with  the assessment. This notice was
\nserved on November 20, 1968, on the son of the proprietor of
\nHomely Industries.\n<\/p>\n
     It appears\t that a\t number of  adjournments were  taken
\nafter  the   death  of\tHashidul  Hasan,  sometimes  on\t the
\napplication of the munim
\n864<\/span>
\nand once  even on  the application  of the  son, Syed  Mohd.
\nIsmail,\t to   enable  the  assessee  to\t make  an  effective
\nrepresentation. While  as  many\t as  six  adjournments\twere
\ngranted on  the application  of Nazir Husain and once of the
\nson of the deceased between 19-12-1968 and 26-4-1969, on the
\nlast  date   a\tfurther\t application  by  Nazir\t Husain\t for
\nadjournment was rejected by the Sales Tax Officer and an ex-
\nparte order of assessment was made on April 28, 1969.\n<\/p>\n
     The Sales Tax Officer initiated recovery proceedings in
\npursuance of the assessment orders and the demand was sought
\nto be  realised from  the sons of the deceased proprietor by
\ncoercive measures.  That led to two writ applications before
\nthe High  Court\t of  Allahabad\tchallenging  the  assessment
\norders and  the recovery certificates issued under section 8
\nof the\tAct. The  High Court  rejected the  applications and
\ngranted\t certificates\tunder  Article\t 133(1)(a)  of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  contended by  Mr. Manchanda\t on  behalf  of\t the
\nappellant that\tthe assessment\torders are  invalid as\tthey
\nwere made against a dead person. Secondly, he submits that a
\nproper and  valid service  of a demand notice is a condition
\nprecedent for  fixing liability\t on the person from whom the
\ntax is\tsought to be recovered and in this case there was no
\nservice of  notice on  the heirs  and legal  representatives
\nprior to the attempt of recovery through a coercive process.\n<\/p>\n
     With  regard  to  the  first  submission,\tthe  learned
\ncounsel draws  our attention  to section 7C of the Act which
\nreads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “7-C(1).  Where   a  person  dies,  his  executor,
\n\t       administrator or\t other legal  representative
\n\t       shall be\t liable to  pay out of the estate of
\n\t       the deceased  person, to\t the extent to which
\n\t       the estate  is capable of meeting the charge,
\n\t       the tax\tassessed as  payable by such person,
\n\t       or any  penalty which would have been payable
\n\t       by him under this Act, if he had not died.
\n\t  (2)  Where a\tperson dies  before the service upon
\n\t       him  of\t the  notice,\tif  any,  issued  in
\n\t       pursuance  of   section\t7,   his   executor,
\n\t       administrator or\t other legal  representative
\n\t       shall,  on   the\t serving   of\tthe   notice
\n\t       aforesaid, comply therewith and the Assessing
\n\t       Authority may  proceed to assess the turnover
\n\t       of the  deceased person\tas if such executor,
\n\t       administrator or\t other legal  representative
\n\t       were the assessee.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (3)  Where a\tperson dies without having furnished
\n\t       a  return  which\t he  has  been\trequired  to
\n\t       furnish under  the provisions of section 7 or
\n\t       having furnished a return which the Assessing
\n\t       Authority  has\treason\tto   believe  to  be
\n\t       incorrect  or   incomplete,   the   Assessing
\n\t       Authority may  determine the turnover of such
\n\t       person and  assess the  tax payable by him on
\n\t       the basis of such determination, and for this
\n\t       purpose may,  by\t notice,  require  from\t the
\n\t       executor,  administrator\t  or   other   legal
\n\t       representative of  the  deceased\t person\t any
\n\t       accounts, documents, or other
\n865<\/span>
\n\t       evidence which  he might under the provisions
\n\t       of this\tAct have  required from the deceased
\n\t       person”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (4) & (5)\t   x\t  x\t x\tx      x
\n     Relying upon  section 7C(3),  it is  submitted that  no
\nnotice as  required under that sub-section was served on the
\nlegal  heirs   and  representatives   to  produce  accounts,
\ndocuments  and\t other\t evidence   for\t  the\tpurpose\t  of
\ndetermination of the turnover and assessment of tax. Counsel
\nsubmits that  after death  of the father no assessment order
\ncould be  passed without notice under section 7C(3) upon the
\nheirs and legal representatives of the deceased assessee.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It is  true that  the Sales  Tax Officer did not accept
\nthe returns  submitted by  the dealer.\tIt  was,  therefore,
\nincumbent under\t the proviso  to section  7(3) of the Act to
\ngive a\treasonable opportunity to the dealer for the purpose
\nof proving  the correctness  and completeness of the returns
\nalready submitted.  If the  returns were accepted as correct
\nthere was  no necessity\t for giving  any opportunity  to the
\ndealer as  the case will then be governed by section 7(2) of
\nthe  Act.  Mr.\tManchanda,  therefore,\tsubmits\t that  under
\nsection 7C(3)  read with  the proviso to section 7(3) it was
\nobligatory on  the part\t of the\t Sales Tax Officer to give a
\nreasonable  opportunity\t to  the  legal\t representatives  to
\nproduce the  documents and accounts before completion of the
\nassessment. Admittedly\tno notice  under section  7C(3)\t had
\nbeen served  on the legal representatives. It is, therefore,
\nsubmitted that the orders of assessment are invalid.\n<\/p>\n
     Although  the   submission\t on   the  first   blush  is
\nattractive it does not bear a close scrutiny. This is a case
\nwhere the  assessee had\t submitted the returns and since the
\nSales Tax  Officer was not prepared to accept the returns as
\ncorrect and  complete,\the  served  a  notice  on  the\tsole
\nproprietor of  the assessee,  when he  was alive, to produce
\ndocuments and books of accounts under the proviso to section
\n7(3). We  have already referred to the said notice which was
\nserved on  the son  of the  proprietor on November 20, 1968,
\ncalling upon  the dealer to produce the accounts on November
\n29, 1968.  It was,  therefore, an  obligation on the part of
\nthe dealer to produce documents, books of accounts and other
\nevidence to  prove before  the Sales  Tax Officer  that\t the
\nreturns were  correct. This being the factual position about
\nservice of  notice on the deceased while he was alive, there
\nwas no legal entitlement to any further notice to the dealer
\neven if the sole proprietor were alive.\n<\/p>\n
     Under section 7C(3) the Sales Tax Officer may by notice
\nrequire from  the legal\t representative of the deceased such
\naccounts, documents or other evidence as “he might under the
\nprovisions of  the  Act\t have  required\t from  the  deceased
\nperson”. The  Sales Tax\t Officer  had  already\tdemanded  by
\nnotice from  the deceased  while he  was alive production of
\ndocuments  and\t the  books  of\t accounts.  Hence  no  valid
\nobjection can  be taken\t under section\t7C(3) that a further
\nnotice for  production of documents and accounts should have
\nbeen  served   on  the\t legal\trepresentatives.  The  legal
\nrepresentatives would  have been  entitled to  a  notice  to
\nproduce documents  and evidence\t if  the  deceased  had\t not
\nearlier been  served with  a similar  notice during his life
\ntime. Section 7C(3)
\n866<\/span>
\ndoes not  entitle the  legal representatives  to any  notice
\nwhich the  deceased, if\t alive, would not have been entitled
\nto under  the provisions  of the  Act. Since  there  was  no
\nobligation under  the Act  for service of a second notice on
\nthe dealer, if he were alive, the legal representatives were
\nnot entitled  to a  notice as claimed under section 7C(3) of
\nthe Act. The orders of assessment cannot, therefore, be held
\nto be  invalid on  account  of\tnon-service  of\t notice\t for
\nproduction of  documents upon  the legal  representatives in
\nthis case.  Besides, we\t find that the legal representatives
\nwere  aware   of  the\tproceedings  and   took\t several  it
\nadjournments and  if they  did not  choose  to\tproduce\t any
\nfurther evidence it was entirely their fault and they cannot
\nblame the  Officer when\t the request for adjournment was not
\ngranted after  so many requests had already been acceded to.
\nWe, however,  express no  opinion on  the  merits  of  their
\nclaim.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Dikshit  appearing  on\t behalf\t of  the  respondent
\nstrenuously contends  that the\tword “may”  in section 7C(3)
\nmakes it  optional for\tthe Sales Tax Officer to give or not
\nto give notice to the legal representative for production of
\ndocuments after\t death of  an assessee.\t We  are  unable  to
\naccede to this submission.\n<\/p>\n
     The scheme\t of the relevant provisions of the Act is as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
     Omitting the  non-essentials for  the purpose  of\tthis
\ncase, under subsection (1) of section 7 a return is required
\nto be submitted by a dealer showing his turnover. Under sub-
\nsection (2)  of section\t 7, if\tthe  Sales  Tax\t Officer  is
\nsatisfied that\tthe return  submitted by a dealer is correct
\nand complete  he shall\tassess the  tax on the basis of that
\nreturn. Under  sub-section (3)\tof section  7 read  with the
\nproviso, if,  according to the Officer, the return submitted
\nby a  dealer is incorrect or incomplete, he shall make, what
\nis called,  a best  judgment assessment\t after\tmaking\tsuch
\nenquiry as  he\tconsiders  necessary  but  must,  under\t the
\nproviso thereto, give a reasonable opportunity to the dealer
\nto prove  the correctness  and completeness  of\t the  return
\nsubmitted by him.\n<\/p>\n
     So far  as material  for  the  purpose  of\t this  case,
\nsection 7C(3),\tproperly construed,  provides,\tinter  alia,
\nthat if\t a person  dies after  furnishing a  return and\t his
\nreturn, which  was submitted, is not accepted by the Officer
\nas correct  or complete, the obligation to give a reasonable
\nopportunity to prove the correctness and completeness of the
\nreturn under  section 7(3)  read with  the proviso cannot be
\ngiven a\t go-by if  the person  who submitted the return dies
\nwithout a  notice having been given for such an opportunity.
\nThe word  “may” in  section 7C(3)  does not clothe the Sales
\nTax Officer  with  arbitrary  power  of\t assessment  without
\nnotice to  the legal  representative to\t produce evidence or
\ndocuments which,  if the  dealer were  alive, he  would have
\nbeen entitled  to  do  under  section  7(3)  read  with\t the
\nproviso. The submission of Mr. Dikshit is, therefore, devoid
\nof substance.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  view we  have taken that no fresh notice to the
\nlegal representatives was called for prior to the passing of
\nthe assessment\torders in  this case, we are not called upon
\nto decide whether the legal representatives had waived their
\nright to notice as urged in the alternative by Mr. Dikshit.\n<\/p>\n
867<\/span><\/p>\n
     We may  now deal  with the\t second\t submission  of\t Mr.
\nManchanda that\tno recovery  proceedings could be instituted
\nunless a  notice of  demand had\t been served  on  the  legal
\nrepresentative under  section 8\t of the\t Act.  That  section
\nreads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “8   (1) The\ttax assessed under this Act shall be
\n\t       paid in\tsuch manner and in such instalments,
\n\t       if any,\tand within such time, not being less
\n\t       than fifteen days from the date of service of
\n\t       the notice of assessment, as may be specified
\n\t       in the  notice. In  default of  such payment,
\n\t       the whole  of the  amount then  remaining due
\n\t       shall become  recoverable in  accordance with
\n\t       sub-section (2).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (2)  Any tax\tor other  dues payable\tto the State
\n\t       Government   under    this   Act\t  shall\t  be
\n\t       recoverable as arrears of land revenue”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It is clear that before a certificate proceeding can be
\ninstituted under  sub-section (2)  of section  8 a notice of
\ndemand\tunder\tsub-section  (1)   thereof  is\ta  condition
\nprecedent. There  can be  no recovery  without service\tof a
\ndemand notice.\tIt is admitted that such notice has not been
\nserved on the legal representatives. That being the position
\nthe recovery proceedings are not maintainable in law and are
\ninvalid and  the same along with the certificates are liable
\nto be quashed.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Dikshit  has drawn  our attention  to a decision of
\nthis Court in Sahu Rajeshwar Nath v. Income-tax Officer, C-W
\nand<\/a>, Meerut, and Another(1) and submitted that this decision
\nis an  authority for  the proposition  that no notice on the
\nlegal representative  is required under the law prior to the
\ninstitution of recovery proceedings by certificate.\n<\/p>\n
     In that  case this\t Court was considering the liability
\nof a  partner of an unregistered firm which was the assessee
\nand a  notice under  section 29 of the Income-tax Act, 1922,
\nhad been  served on  the unregistered  firm and\t all the tax
\nassessed against  the firm  was sought\tto be recovered from
\nthe partner  in\t proceedings  under  section  46(2)  of\t the
\nIncome-tax Act.\t It was\t contended on  behalf of the partner
\nthat a fresh notice of demand upon the partner was necessary
\nunder the  law and  in its  absence the recovery proceedings
\nwere invalid.  This Court  repelled the\t contention  holding
\nthat although  the unregistered\t firm was  the assessee\t the
\npartner was  liable under  section 25 of the Partnership Act
\nand since  the appellant,  therein, conceded  that he  was a
\npartner of that firm during the accounting year, no separate
\nnotice under  section 29  of the  Income-tax  Act  upon\t the
\npartner was  necessary. It  was further held that the notice
\ncontemplated under  section 29\tof the Income-tax Act, 1922,
\nwas to\tthe assessee  or to any other person liable and “any
\nother person  liable under  section 29”\t meant “liable under
\nthe Income-tax\tAct” and not under any other law such as the
\nPartnership Act.\n<\/p>\n
     That was  a case  where no\t question  arose  about\t the
\nliability of  the appellant  therein under the provisions of
\nthe Income-tax\tAct such  as section  24B of  the Income-tax
\nAct, 1922,  which is  almost identical with section 7C(1) of
\nthe Act and that because of that under section
\n868<\/span>
\n29 of  the Income-tax  Act a notice of demand was obligatory
\nas a  condition precedent  to the institution of certificate
\nproceedings for\t recovery of  the dues\tas arrears  of\tland
\nrevenue. The  aforesaid\t decision  of  this  Court  in\tSahu
\nRajeshwar  Nath’s   case  (supra)   is,\t therefore,   of  no
\nassistance to the learned counsel.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  result the\t judgments of  the  High  Court\t are
\naffirmed  but\tthe  orders  with  regard  to  the  recovery
\nproceedings, which  are invalid,  are set aside. The appeals
\nare partly  allowed. There  will be, however, no order as to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
     We should\tobserve that we express no opinion about the
\nappeals which  are said\t to be\tpending before the Assistant
\nCommissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax.\n<\/p>\n
P.H.P.\t\t\t\t     Appeals partly allowed.\n869<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Homely Industries vs The Sales Tax Officer, Sector V, … on 24 March, 1976 Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 2086, 1976 SCR (3) 862 Author: P Goswami Bench: Goswami, P.K. PETITIONER: HOMELY INDUSTRIES Vs. RESPONDENT: THE SALES TAX OFFICER, SECTOR V, KANPUR DATE OF JUDGMENT24\/03\/1976 BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. KHANNA, […]<\/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-116411","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nHomely Industries vs The Sales Tax Officer, Sector V, ... on 24 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/homely-industries-vs-the-sales-tax-officer-sector-v-on-24-march-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Homely Industries vs The Sales Tax Officer, Sector V, ... on 24 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/homely-industries-vs-the-sales-tax-officer-sector-v-on-24-march-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1976-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-20T16:02:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/homely-industries-vs-the-sales-tax-officer-sector-v-on-24-march-1976#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/homely-industries-vs-the-sales-tax-officer-sector-v-on-24-march-1976\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Homely Industries vs The Sales Tax Officer, Sector V, … on 24 March, 1976\",\"datePublished\":\"1976-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-20T16:02:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/homely-industries-vs-the-sales-tax-officer-sector-v-on-24-march-1976\"},\"wordCount\":2593,\"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\\\/homely-industries-vs-the-sales-tax-officer-sector-v-on-24-march-1976#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/homely-industries-vs-the-sales-tax-officer-sector-v-on-24-march-1976\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/homely-industries-vs-the-sales-tax-officer-sector-v-on-24-march-1976\",\"name\":\"Homely Industries vs The Sales Tax Officer, Sector V, ... on 24 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1976-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-20T16:02:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/homely-industries-vs-the-sales-tax-officer-sector-v-on-24-march-1976#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/homely-industries-vs-the-sales-tax-officer-sector-v-on-24-march-1976\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/homely-industries-vs-the-sales-tax-officer-sector-v-on-24-march-1976#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Homely Industries vs The Sales Tax Officer, Sector V, … on 24 March, 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":"Homely Industries vs The Sales Tax Officer, Sector V, ... on 24 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/homely-industries-vs-the-sales-tax-officer-sector-v-on-24-march-1976","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Homely Industries vs The Sales Tax Officer, Sector V, ... on 24 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/homely-industries-vs-the-sales-tax-officer-sector-v-on-24-march-1976","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1976-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-20T16:02:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/homely-industries-vs-the-sales-tax-officer-sector-v-on-24-march-1976#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/homely-industries-vs-the-sales-tax-officer-sector-v-on-24-march-1976"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Homely Industries vs The Sales Tax Officer, Sector V, … on 24 March, 1976","datePublished":"1976-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-20T16:02:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/homely-industries-vs-the-sales-tax-officer-sector-v-on-24-march-1976"},"wordCount":2593,"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\/homely-industries-vs-the-sales-tax-officer-sector-v-on-24-march-1976#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/homely-industries-vs-the-sales-tax-officer-sector-v-on-24-march-1976","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/homely-industries-vs-the-sales-tax-officer-sector-v-on-24-march-1976","name":"Homely Industries vs The Sales Tax Officer, Sector V, ... on 24 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1976-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-20T16:02:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/homely-industries-vs-the-sales-tax-officer-sector-v-on-24-march-1976#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/homely-industries-vs-the-sales-tax-officer-sector-v-on-24-march-1976"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/homely-industries-vs-the-sales-tax-officer-sector-v-on-24-march-1976#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Homely Industries vs The Sales Tax Officer, Sector V, … on 24 March, 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\/116411","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=116411"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116411\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=116411"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=116411"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=116411"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}