{"id":138492,"date":"1977-11-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1977-11-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/additional-commissioner-of-vs-ms-gurjargravures-private-on-8-november-1977"},"modified":"2015-11-22T01:46:30","modified_gmt":"2015-11-21T20:16:30","slug":"additional-commissioner-of-vs-ms-gurjargravures-private-on-8-november-1977","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/additional-commissioner-of-vs-ms-gurjargravures-private-on-8-november-1977","title":{"rendered":"Additional Commissioner Of … vs M\/S. Gurjargravures Private … on 8 November, 1977"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Additional Commissioner Of … vs M\/S. Gurjargravures Private … on 8 November, 1977<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1978 AIR 40, \t\t 1978 SCR (2) 169<\/div>\n
Author: A Gupta<\/div>\n
Bench: Gupta, A.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,GUJARAT, I, AHMEDABAD\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/S.  GURJARGRAVURES PRIVATE LIMITED\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT08\/11\/1977\n\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, A.C.\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, A.C.\nSHINGAL, P.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1978 AIR   40\t\t  1978 SCR  (2) 169\n 1977 SCC  (4) 571\n\n\nACT:\nIncome-tax Act, 1961, s. 251 (1) (a) equivalent to s.  31(3)\nof   Act   of  1922-Powers  of\t the   Appellate   Assistant\nCommissioner in disposing of an appeal-Scope of\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  respondent\t assessee  is  a  Company  carrying  on\t its\nbusiness of, copper engraving and manufacturing labels.\t For\nthe assessment year 1963-64, the assesee did not ask for any\nexemption  in  respect\tof a portion of\t its  profits  under\nsection\t 84 of the Income-tax Act, though in the  subsequent\nyears  the  assessee  did ask  and  the\t Income-tax  Officer\naccepted it. Dismissing the appeal against the orders of the\nassessments  for the year 1963-64, the\tAppellate  Assistant\nCommissioner, therefore, held that the question of error  on\nthe part of the Income-tax Officer did not arise as no claim\nfor exemption under section 84, which was made for the first\ntime  before  him,  had\t been  made  before  the  Income-tax\nOfficer.  The Tribunal, on further appeal, took a  different\nview  and  held that \"since the entire assessment  was\topen\nbefore\tthe Appellate Assistant Commissioner\" there  was  no\n\"reason for not entertaining the claim of the assessee.\" The\nTribunal   directed   the  Income-tax\tOfficer\t  to   allow\nappropriate  relief  under  section 84 of  the\tAct.   On  a\nreference  made at the instance of Commissioner\t of  Income-\ntax, the Gujarat High Court answered it against the  revenue\nand in favour of the assessee.\nAllowing the appeal the Court,\nHELD  :\t (1)  'Consideration' does not\tmean  incidental  or\ncollateral  examination\t of  any matter\t by  the  Income-tax\nOfficer\t in  the  process  of  assessment.   There  must  be\nsomething  mind\t in the assessment order to  show  that\t the\nIncome\ttax  Officer  applied his mind\t to  the  particular\nsubject\t matter\t or the particular source of income  with  a\nview to its taxability or its non-taxability.  If an item of\nincome\tnoticed by the Income-tax Officer, but not  examined\nby  him\t from the point of view of its\ttaxability  or\tnon-\ntaxability  cannot be said to have been considered  by\thim,\nthe  Income-tax Officer examining a portion of\tthe  profits\nfrom  the  point  of view of its taxability  should  not  be\ndeemed\tto  have also considered the question  of  its\tnon-\ntaxability. [172 F-G]\nCommissioner  of  Income-tax  (Central),  Calcutta  v.\t Rai\nBahadur\t Hardurroy  Motilal Chamaria<\/a> (1967)  66\t I.T.R.\t 443\napplied.\nCommissioner  of  Income-tax v.\t Shapoorji  Pullonji  Mistry<\/a>\n(1962 44 I.T.R. 891; Narronday Manordass v. Commissioner  of\nIncome-tax (1957) 31 I.T.R.\n909.referred to.\n(2)In the instant case,; (a) on the facts of the case, the\nquestion  referred  to\tthe  High  Court  should  have\tbeen\nanswered in the negative; (b) Neither any claim was made  by\nthe assessee before the Income-tax Officer nor was there any\nmaterial  on  record  supporting such a claim;\t(c)  in\t the\nstatement of the case, drawn up by the Tribunal there is  no\nbasis for an assumption by the High Court that a portion  of\nthe  profit in the relevant assessment year was exempt\tfrom\ntax  under section 84 and that the assessee failed to  claim\nan exemption to which he was admittedly entitled.  From that\nadmission  that\t in the years subsequent to  the  assessment\nyear in question, a relief under section 84 had been allowed\nto  the assessee, it cannot be presumed that the  prescribed\nconditions  justifying\ta  claim  for  exemption  under\t the\nsection were also fulfilled in an earlier year. [172 A-C, G-\nH 173 A-B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1655  of
\n1972.\n<\/p>\n
170<\/span><\/p>\n
From the Judgment and Order dated 13th\/14th September,\t1971
\nof the Gujarat High Court in Income Tax Reference No. 2\/70.
\nB.   B. Ahuja and R. N. Sachthey for the Appellant.
\nG.   L.’Sanghi,\t Ravinder  Narain,  D.\tN.,  Mishra,  J.  B.
\nDadachanji and O. C. Mathur for the Respondent.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nGUPTA, J.-This appeal by the Additional Commissioner of\t In-
\ncome-tax,  Gujarat,  1, Ahmedabad, on  a  certificate  under
\nsection\t 261  of  the Income-tax Act, 1961  granted  by\t the
\nGujarat High Court, raises a question relating to the powers
\nof  the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in disposing of  an
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
The respondent, a company carrying on the business of copper
\nengraving  and\tmanufacturing  of lables,  appealed  to\t the
\nAppellate   Assistant  Commissioner  against  an  order\t  of
\nassessment made under section 143(3) of the Income-Tax\tAct,
\n1961, and one of the grounds of appeal was that the  Income-
\ntax  officer  had  erred in not.  giving  the  assessee\t any
\nbenefit\t under section 84 of the Act.  The  assessment\tyear
\nwas  1963-64.\tNo claim however had been  made\t before\t the
\nIncome-tax officer when he completed the assessment that the
\nassessee  was  entitled\t to an exemption  in  respect  of  a
\nportion\t of  its profits under section\t84.   The  Appellate
\nAssistant  ‘Commissioner dismissed the appeal on the  ground
\nthat  the  question of error on the part of  the  Income-tax
\nofficer\t did not arise as no claim for exemption under\tsec-
\ntion  84  had  been made before him.  The  Tribunal  look  a
\ndifferent  view and held that “since the entire\t “assessment
\nwas open before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner”  there
\nwas  no\t “reason  for  not entertaining\t the  claim  of\t the
\nassessee”.  The Tribunal accordingly directed the Income-tax
\nofficer to allow appropriate relief under section 84 of\t the
\nAct.   It  is  on record that in the  subsequent  years\t the
\nassessee  asked\t for  exemption under  section\t84  and\t the
\nIncome-tax  officer accepted the claim.\t On these facts\t the
\nTribunal  referred the following question to the High  Court
\nat the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
\n\t      of the case it was competent for the  Tribunal
\n\t      to   hold\t  that\t the   Appellate   Assistant
\n\t      Commissioner   should  have  entertained\t the
\n\t      question\tof relief under section 84,  and  to
\n\t      direct   the  Income-tax\tofficer\t  to   allow
\n\t      necessary relief ?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  High  Court answered the question in  the\taffirmative.
\nThe correctness of this decision is questioned before us  by
\nthe Revenue.\n<\/p>\n
Referring to a number of authorities including the  decision
\nof  this  Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax  v.  Shapoorji
\nPallonji  Mistry,<\/a>(1) and the case of Narrondas Manordass  v.
\nCommissioner  of Income-Tax,(2) decided by the\tBombay\tHigh
\nCourt, the High Court found it well settled that the various
\nitems of income or deductions which have
\n(1)(1962) 44 I.T.R. 891.\n<\/p>\n
(2)(1957) 31 T.T.R. 909.\n<\/p>\n
171<\/span><\/p>\n
been  subjected to the process of assessment constitute\t the
\nsubject matter of assessment, and that if there is any\titem
\nof  income or claim for deduction which is not processed  by
\nthe  Income-tax\t officer,  it would not be  a  part  of\t the
\nsubject\t matter\t of assessment and the\tAppellate  Assistant
\nCommissioner  would  not  have the  power  to  consider\t and
\nprocess it in an appeal preferred by the assessee.  Both the
\ndecisions, Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Shapoorji  Pallonji
\nMistry<\/a>\t(supra) and Narrondas Manordass v.  Commissioner  of
\nIncome-Tax (supra), are based on section 31(3) of the Indian
\nIncome-Tax  Act, 1922 defining the powers of  the  Appellate
\nAssistant  Commissioner in disposing of an appeal.   Section
\n251  (1)  (a)  of  the Income-Tax Act,\t1961  which  is\t the
\nprovision applicable to the case before us, is, as the\tHigh
\nCourt has noticed, almost similar in terms to section  31(3)
\nof the Act of 1922.\n<\/p>\n
Having\tnoticed\t the established position in law,  the\tHigh
\nCourt  proceeded to consider the contention of ‘the  Revenue
\nwhich  was that no claim for exemption having been  made  by
\nthe  assessee  before  the Income-tax officer,\tit  was\t not
\nconsidered  or-processed  by  him and the  claim  could\t not
\ntherefore  be said to he the subject matter  of\t assessment.
\nIt appears to have been argued further that merely because a
\nparticular  item of income was taxed, it did not carry\twith
\nit  a  decision\t that it wag not exempt\t from  tax  and\t the
\nAppellate  Assistant Commissioner had accordingly no  power.
\nto  interfere  by considering and allowing  such  claim\t for
\nexemption.   The High Court rejected the contention  on\t the
\nfollowing reasoning :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Here,  in  the present  case  the  Income-tax
\n\t      Officer subjected to tax a certain portion  of
\n\t      the  profit  which was exempt from  tax  under
\n\t      section  84.  It may be that he brought it  to
\n\t      tax  because no claim for exemption  was\tmade
\n\t      before  him  by  the assessee,  but  the\tfact
\n\t      remains that it was ‘subjected to the  process
\n\t      of  assessment and it clearly and\t indubitably
\n\t      formed  the subject matter of assessment.\t  It
\n\t      is  true\tthat no claim for  exemption  having
\n\t      been  made by the assessee before the  Income-
\n\t      tax  Officer,  there was no  decision  of\t the
\n\t      Income-tax   Officer,  express   or   implied,
\n\t      holding  that a certain portion of  profit  of
\n\t      assessee was not exempt from under section 84.
\n\t      But  in  order that  the\tAppellate  Assistant
\n\t      Commissioner  should be entitled to  interfere
\n\t      in  appeal  on a particular point, it  is\t not
\n\t      necessary\t that there should be a decision  of
\n\t      the point given by the Income-tax Officer.  It
\n\t      is enough if the particular item of income  in
\n\t      relation\tto which the point is to  be  raised
\n\t      has  come in for consideration by the  Income-
\n\t      tax  Officer and has been subjected by him  to
\n\t      the process of assessment.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
We do not find it possible to agree with the High Court that
\nif  an\titem of income is taxed, the question  of  its\tnon-
\ntaxability  should be taken to have been considered  by\t the
\nIncome-tax officer though no such claim was made before, him
\nby the assessee.  This is directly opposed to the view taken
\nby this Court in Commissioner of income-tax
\n172<\/span>
\n(Central),.   Calcutta v. Bahadur Hardutroy\t     Motilal
\nChamaria<\/a>(1)  Before  refer to this case in more\t detail,  we
\nthink  it  necessary  to. point out  a\tmistaken  assumption
\nappearing  in the judgment under appeal.  If the High  Court
\nassumed\t that  a  portion  of the  profit  in  the  relevant
\nassessment  year was exempt from tax under section 84,\tonly
\nthe assessee failed to claim an exemption.  In narrating the
\nfacts of the case the judgment records that the assesses was
\n“admittedly  entitled to exemption”.  Again, in the  extract
\nquoted above, it appears to have been assumed that a certain
\nportion of the profit was exempt from tax under section\t 84.
\nWe find no basis for the assumption in the statement of\t the
\ncase  drawn  up by the Tribunal. What appears to  have\tbeen
\nadmitted was that in the years subsequent to the, assessment
\nyear  in question, relief under section 84 had been  allowed
\nto  the assessee.  But from this it cannot be  assumed\tthat
\nthe  prescribed conditions justifying a claim for  exemption
\nunder the section were also fulfilled in an earlier year.
\nTurning now to the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v.
\nRai` Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (supra), this was  a
\ncase  of  enhancement  of the assessment  by  the  Appellate
\nAssistant  Commissioner\t under Section 31(3) of\t the  Indian
\nIncome-Tax Act, 1922.  This Court held on a consideration of
\nthe earlier authorities including Commissioner of Income-tax
\nv.  Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry and Narrondas, Manohardass<\/a>  v.
\nCommissioner  of  Income-Tax (supra),.\tthat  the  Appellate
\nAssistant  Commissioner\t bad no jurisdiction  under  section
\n31(3)  “to  assess  a source of income which  has  not\tbeen
\nprocessed  by  the Income-tax Officer” and that “it  is\t not
\nopen  to  the  Appellate Assistant  Commissioner  to  travel
\noutside\t the record i.e. the return made by the assessee  or
\nthe  assessment order of the Income-tax Officer with a\tview
\nto  find  out  new  sources  of\t income\t and  the  power  of
\nenhancement under section 31(3) of the Act is restricted  to
\nthe sources of income which have been the subject matter  of
\nconsideration  by the Income-tax Officer from the  point  of
\nview of taxability”.  What ‘consideration’ by the Income-tax
\nofficer\t  means\t  in  this  context   was   also   explained
\nconsideration’\tdoes  not  mean\t incidental  or\t  collateral
\nexamination of any matter, by the Income-tax officer in\t the
\nprocess\t of  assessment.   There must be  something  in\t the
\nassessment order to show that the Income-tax officer applied
\nhis mind to the particular subject matter or the  particular
\nsource\tof income with a view- to its taxability or  to\t its
\nnon-taxability\tand not to any incidental connection”.\t If,
\nas  held  in  this case, an item of income  noticed  by\t the
\nIncome-tax officer but not examined by him from the point of
\nview  of its taxability or non taxability cannot be said  to
\nhave been considered by him, it is not possible to bold that
\nthe  Income-tax officer examining a portion of\tthe  Profits
\nfrom  the  point of view of its taxability only,  should  be
\ndeemed\tto  have also considered the question  of  its\tnon-
\ntaxability.  As we have pointed out earlier, the,  statement
\nof case drawn up by the Tribunal does not mention that there
\nwas  any  material  on\trecord\tto  sustain  the  claim\t for
\nexemption  which  was made for the first time  be  fore\t the
\nAppellate Assistant Commissioner.  We are not here called
\n(1)(1967) 66 I.T.R. 443.\n<\/p>\n
173<\/span><\/p>\n
upon to consider a case where the assessee failed to make  a
\nclaim though there was evidence on record to support it,  or
\na   case  where\t a  claim  was\tmade  but  no  evidence\t  or
\ninsufficient  evidence\twas  adduced  in  support.   In\t the
\npresent case neither any claim was made before ,the  Income-
\ntax officer, nor was there any material on record supporting
\nsuch a, claim.\tWe therefore hold that on the facts of\tthis
\ncase,  the question referred to the High Court\tshould\thave
\nbeen answered in the, negative.\n<\/p>\n
The  appeal is allowed but in the circumstances of the\tcase
\nwe make no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
S.R.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
174<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Additional Commissioner Of … vs M\/S. Gurjargravures Private … on 8 November, 1977 Equivalent citations: 1978 AIR 40, 1978 SCR (2) 169 Author: A Gupta Bench: Gupta, A.C. PETITIONER: ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,GUJARAT, I, AHMEDABAD Vs. RESPONDENT: M\/S. GURJARGRAVURES PRIVATE LIMITED DATE OF JUDGMENT08\/11\/1977 BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. […]<\/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-138492","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAdditional Commissioner Of ... vs M\/S. Gurjargravures Private ... on 8 November, 1977 - 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\/additional-commissioner-of-vs-ms-gurjargravures-private-on-8-november-1977\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Additional Commissioner Of ... vs M\/S. Gurjargravures Private ... on 8 November, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/additional-commissioner-of-vs-ms-gurjargravures-private-on-8-november-1977\" \/>\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=\"1977-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-21T20:16:30+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/additional-commissioner-of-vs-ms-gurjargravures-private-on-8-november-1977#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/additional-commissioner-of-vs-ms-gurjargravures-private-on-8-november-1977\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Additional Commissioner Of … vs M\\\/S. Gurjargravures Private … on 8 November, 1977\",\"datePublished\":\"1977-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-21T20:16:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/additional-commissioner-of-vs-ms-gurjargravures-private-on-8-november-1977\"},\"wordCount\":1666,\"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\\\/additional-commissioner-of-vs-ms-gurjargravures-private-on-8-november-1977#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/additional-commissioner-of-vs-ms-gurjargravures-private-on-8-november-1977\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/additional-commissioner-of-vs-ms-gurjargravures-private-on-8-november-1977\",\"name\":\"Additional Commissioner Of ... vs M\\\/S. Gurjargravures Private ... on 8 November, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1977-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-21T20:16:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/additional-commissioner-of-vs-ms-gurjargravures-private-on-8-november-1977#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/additional-commissioner-of-vs-ms-gurjargravures-private-on-8-november-1977\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/additional-commissioner-of-vs-ms-gurjargravures-private-on-8-november-1977#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Additional Commissioner Of … vs M\\\/S. Gurjargravures Private … on 8 November, 1977\"}]},{\"@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":"Additional Commissioner Of ... vs M\/S. Gurjargravures Private ... on 8 November, 1977 - 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\/additional-commissioner-of-vs-ms-gurjargravures-private-on-8-november-1977","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Additional Commissioner Of ... vs M\/S. Gurjargravures Private ... on 8 November, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/additional-commissioner-of-vs-ms-gurjargravures-private-on-8-november-1977","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1977-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-21T20:16:30+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/additional-commissioner-of-vs-ms-gurjargravures-private-on-8-november-1977#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/additional-commissioner-of-vs-ms-gurjargravures-private-on-8-november-1977"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Additional Commissioner Of … vs M\/S. Gurjargravures Private … on 8 November, 1977","datePublished":"1977-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-21T20:16:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/additional-commissioner-of-vs-ms-gurjargravures-private-on-8-november-1977"},"wordCount":1666,"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\/additional-commissioner-of-vs-ms-gurjargravures-private-on-8-november-1977#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/additional-commissioner-of-vs-ms-gurjargravures-private-on-8-november-1977","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/additional-commissioner-of-vs-ms-gurjargravures-private-on-8-november-1977","name":"Additional Commissioner Of ... vs M\/S. Gurjargravures Private ... on 8 November, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1977-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-21T20:16:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/additional-commissioner-of-vs-ms-gurjargravures-private-on-8-november-1977#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/additional-commissioner-of-vs-ms-gurjargravures-private-on-8-november-1977"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/additional-commissioner-of-vs-ms-gurjargravures-private-on-8-november-1977#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Additional Commissioner Of … vs M\/S. Gurjargravures Private … on 8 November, 1977"}]},{"@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\/138492","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=138492"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138492\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138492"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138492"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138492"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}