{"id":153756,"date":"2009-11-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-the-proprietor-on-10-november-2009"},"modified":"2014-07-13T00:49:48","modified_gmt":"2014-07-12T19:19:48","slug":"the-commissioner-vs-the-proprietor-on-10-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-the-proprietor-on-10-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner vs The Proprietor on 10 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Commissioner vs The Proprietor on 10 November, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 10\/11\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI\n\nCRL.A.(MD)No.189 of 2007\n\nThe Commissioner,\nRajapalayam Municipality\nRajapalayam \t\t\t               ... Appellant\/Complainant\n\nVs.\n\nThe Proprietor\nJanakiram Mills (P) Ltd.,\n8 to 47, Thenkasi Road,\nRajapalayma,\nVirudunagar District.\t\t               ... Respondent\/Accused\n\nPRAYER\n\nAppeal filed under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code,\nagainst the judgment made in S.T.C. No.3083 of 2000, dated 24.05.2006 on the\nfile of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam.\n\n!For Appellant  ... Mr.P.Srinivas\n^For Respondent\t... Mr.K.Vinayagam\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis Criminal Appeal has been directed against the judgment made in S.T.C.<br \/>\nNo.3083 of 2000, dated 24.05.2006 on the file of the learned Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrate, Rajapalayam.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.The Door Nos.49 to 52-A at Rajapalayam belong to one Jankiram Mill (P)<br \/>\nLt., which was assessed for Tax for the year 1998-99 and 2000.  There was a tax<br \/>\narrears for Rs.5,50,313\/-. The tax arrears was demanded by the Commissioner,<br \/>\nRajapalayam Municipality, and the same was not paid.  Therefore, a demand notice<br \/>\nwas given under Ex.P1, and the same was received under Ex.P2 and thereafter, a<br \/>\nprosecution was launched by filing a complaint under Ex.P.3.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.The complaint was taken on file in S.T.C.No.3083 of 2000 by the learned<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, and on appearance of the accused on<br \/>\n24.08.2000, the copy of the complaint was furnished to him and on his subsequent<br \/>\nappearance on 28.08.2000, the accused was questioned about the charges and the<br \/>\naccused denied  the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.To prove the charges, an officer of the Municipality was examined as<br \/>\nP.W.1.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.The accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and he denied<br \/>\nthe charges and a defence was taken that the complaint was not filed in time and<br \/>\ntaking cognizance is barred under Section 347 of the Tamil Nadu District<br \/>\nMunicipalities Act.  An another defence was also taken that under Rule 30(2),<br \/>\ndistraint proceedings is a condition precedent for launching a criminal<br \/>\nprosecution.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapalayam, found that Section 347 of<br \/>\nthe Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, which provides a limitation of three<br \/>\nmonths is not applicable and the limitation prescribed under Section 345 of the<br \/>\nAct, which  is for three years, is applicable and the complaint is in time.<br \/>\nWhile considering an alternative remedy of distraint procedures, the learned<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate found that steps were not taken for distraint proceedings<br \/>\nand therefore, the complaint is vitiated and dismissed the same and thereby the<br \/>\naccused was acquitted under Section 255(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedures.<br \/>\nHence, this Criminal Appeal by the Municipality.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.Aggrieved by the judgment, the appellant\/complainant has preferred the<br \/>\npresent appeal on the following grounds:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(1) The learned Magistrate has erred in holding that only after the<br \/>\ninitiation of distraint proceedings under Rule 30(1) of the Schedule IV of the<br \/>\nTamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, the complaint, if any, against the<br \/>\ndefaulter in payment of property tax would be maintainable and the learned<br \/>\nMagistrate failed to note that under the proviso to Rule 30(1), if for any<br \/>\nreason the distraint or a sufficient distraint, of the defaulter&#8217;s property is<br \/>\nimpracticable, the executive authority may prosecute the defaulter before a<br \/>\nMagistrate.  Therefore, the dismissal of the complaint preferred by the<br \/>\npetitioner\/complainant is irregular and liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(2) The learned Magistrate has failed to consider that the appellant \/<br \/>\ncomplainant has demanded the property tax from the accused and the accused has<br \/>\nfailed to pay the demand made by the complainant and it was shown that the<br \/>\naccused has willfully omitted to pay the demand amount.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(3) The learned Magistrate has failed to consider the wordings contained<br \/>\nin Rule 30 of the schedule IV of Act 1920, if in opinion of the executive<br \/>\nauthority, the  initiation of distraint proceedings will not give any result or<br \/>\nit is impracticable that without resorting to distraint proceedings, the<br \/>\nexecutive authority  can take criminal prosecution against the defaulter of the<br \/>\nproperty tax of the Municipality.  Therefore, the question of initiation of<br \/>\nCriminal proceedings before the initiation of distraint proceedings will not<br \/>\narise at all and is not mandatory.  The Municipality has got every right and<br \/>\nauthority to institute Criminal proceedings even before initiation of distraint<br \/>\nproceedings.  Hence, the complaint prepared before the learned Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrate is maintainable in law and the learned Magistrate ought to have<br \/>\nproceeded on the complaint of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(4) The learned Magistrate ought to have considered that no document was<br \/>\nmarked by the accused\/respondent to establish that he had not willfully omitted<br \/>\nto pay the arrears, when P.W-1 has categorically stated in his evidence that the<br \/>\ndemand was made and the accused has not paid the amount in spite of the demand.\n<\/p>\n<p> \t8.The point for consideration arises in this appeal is whether the<br \/>\ncomplaint had exhausted the remedy available under Rule 30(2) of the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nDistrict Municipalities Act, which provides for a distraint proceedings before<br \/>\nlaunching a criminal proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.The learned counsel for the appellant\/complainant would submit that<br \/>\nthere was a demand for payment of huge tax arrears of Rs.5,50,313\/- due to the<br \/>\nMunicipality and the prosecution notice was issued under Ex.P1.  The learned<br \/>\ncounsel pointed out that it is categorically submitted in the complaint as well<br \/>\nas through evidence that a sufficient distraint of the defaulter&#8217;s property is<br \/>\nimpracticable and therefore, the prosecution was launched.  The learned counsel<br \/>\npointed out that the learned Judicial Magistrate is wrong in holding that the<br \/>\ncomplainant has not exhausted that remedy.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.The learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court in Kothuval<br \/>\nAmirunnissa Vs. Commissioner, Vaniambadi Municipality, Vellore District reported<br \/>\nin (2007 (2) MLJ 149 Mad), wherein it has been held as follows:-<br \/>\n\t&#8220;The proceedings for distraint of the defaulter&#8217;s property is a precedent<br \/>\nfor launching criminal prosecution against the defaulter of tax.  The trial<br \/>\nCourt has to go into the question whether any steps were taken actually for<br \/>\ndistraint of property or not.  The prosecution must be given opportunity to<br \/>\nexplain as to how the complaint is within time.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.The learned counsel for the respondent\/accused would submit that<br \/>\ndistraint proceedings is a condition precedent for launching the prosecution and<br \/>\nthe complainant has not exhusted that procedure which warrants the dismissal of<br \/>\nthe complaint and the acquittal of the accused. The learned counsel pointed out<br \/>\nthat the complainant ought to have established that the distraint has become<br \/>\nimpracticable under Rule 30(2) of the District Municipalities Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. The learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court in<br \/>\nP.R.V.R.Veerappa Chettiar Vs. State of madras and another reported in (1969 L.W.<br \/>\n(Crl.) 58) wherein it has been held that<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;It is clear from Rule 30(2) that prosecution cannot be instituted against<br \/>\nthe defaulter unless it was found that the distraint of the defaulter&#8217;s property<br \/>\nis impracticable.  So, the condition precedent for instituting prosecution after<br \/>\nthe amount has become due is the commencement of distraint proceedings and<br \/>\nconsequent finding that such distraint is impracticable.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.The learned counsel also relied on the decision of this Court in<br \/>\nKalimuthu Vs. Municipal Heal Officer reported in (1969 L.W. (Crl.) 111) for the<br \/>\nsame proposition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14.Rule 30 (2) Reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;If for any reason distraint or a sufficient distraint of the defaulter&#8217;s<br \/>\nproperty is impracticable the (Executive Authority) may prosecute the defaulter<br \/>\nbefore a Magistrate.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. Now it is well settled that the distraint proceedings is a condition<br \/>\nprecedent for  a  criminal prosecution. To commence  a distraint proceedings, it<br \/>\nis necessary that a bill under Rule 29 shall be served on the person from whom<br \/>\nthe amount is due and such bill shall contain a statement of the period and the<br \/>\ndescription of the property for which such tax is charged and a notice of the<br \/>\nliability incurred in default of  payment of such due.  If the amount due is not<br \/>\npaid within 15 days from the service of such notice, the amount can be recovered<br \/>\nfrom distraint proceedings under the warrant of the distraint. The movable<br \/>\nproperties of the defaulters can  be brought for sale and the tax arrears has to<br \/>\nbe appropriated. And for any reason, such distraint or a sufficient distraint is<br \/>\nimpracticable, the reasons  has to be recorded and then only a criminal<br \/>\nprosecution can be launched. Merely stating that distraint proceedings are<br \/>\nimpracticable is not sufficient. The distraint proceedings is a condition<br \/>\nprecedent for such criminal prosecution and there must be some evidence to show<br \/>\nthat action  has been taken to that effect.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. In the present case the complainant has not taken any steps for such<br \/>\ndistraint proceedings and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and<br \/>\nthe learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly dismissed the complaint and<br \/>\nacquitted the accused. I have no reason to interfere with the order of the Court<br \/>\nbelow.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17.In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant<br \/>\nis at liberty to take distraint proceedings subject to limitation.\n<\/p>\n<p>MPK<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Judicial Magistrate,  Rajapalayam.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,<br \/>\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Commissioner vs The Proprietor on 10 November, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10\/11\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI CRL.A.(MD)No.189 of 2007 The Commissioner, Rajapalayam Municipality Rajapalayam &#8230; Appellant\/Complainant Vs. The Proprietor Janakiram Mills (P) Ltd., 8 to 47, Thenkasi Road, Rajapalayma, Virudunagar District. &#8230; Respondent\/Accused [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-153756","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Commissioner vs The Proprietor on 10 November, 2009 - 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\/the-commissioner-vs-the-proprietor-on-10-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Commissioner vs The Proprietor on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-the-proprietor-on-10-november-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-07-12T19:19:48+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-the-proprietor-on-10-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-the-proprietor-on-10-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner vs The Proprietor on 10 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-12T19:19:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-the-proprietor-on-10-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1410,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-the-proprietor-on-10-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-the-proprietor-on-10-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-the-proprietor-on-10-november-2009\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner vs The Proprietor on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-12T19:19:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-the-proprietor-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-the-proprietor-on-10-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-the-proprietor-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Commissioner vs The Proprietor on 10 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"The Commissioner vs The Proprietor on 10 November, 2009 - 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\/the-commissioner-vs-the-proprietor-on-10-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner vs The Proprietor on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-the-proprietor-on-10-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-07-12T19:19:48+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-the-proprietor-on-10-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-the-proprietor-on-10-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner vs The Proprietor on 10 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-12T19:19:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-the-proprietor-on-10-november-2009"},"wordCount":1410,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-the-proprietor-on-10-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-the-proprietor-on-10-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-the-proprietor-on-10-november-2009","name":"The Commissioner vs The Proprietor on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-12T19:19:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-the-proprietor-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-the-proprietor-on-10-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-the-proprietor-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Commissioner vs The Proprietor on 10 November, 2009"}]},{"@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\/153756","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=153756"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153756\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=153756"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=153756"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=153756"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}