{"id":15493,"date":"2003-02-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-02-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-ors-vs-ms-subhash-company-on-17-february-2003"},"modified":"2015-04-10T04:12:20","modified_gmt":"2015-04-09T22:42:20","slug":"commissioner-of-sales-tax-ors-vs-ms-subhash-company-on-17-february-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-ors-vs-ms-subhash-company-on-17-february-2003","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax & Ors vs M\/S Subhash & Company on 17 February, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Sales Tax & Ors vs M\/S Subhash & Company on 17 February, 2003<\/div>\n
Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil, Arijit Pasayat<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1374 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nCommissioner of Sales Tax & Ors.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/s Subhash & Company\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/02\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nSHIVARAJ V. PATIL & ARIJIT PASAYAT\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
(Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) No. 389\/2002)<\/p>\n
ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe controversy involved in the present case lies with
\na very narrow compass and, therefore, a brief reference to
\nthe factual aspects would suffice.\n<\/p>\n
\tRespondent-Subhash Kimtee (hereinafter referred to as
\nassessee) was the proprietor of a concern known as M\/s
\nSubhash and Company. He was registered as a dealer  under
\nthe M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred
\nto as ‘the  Act’)  w.e.f.  28.5.1973.\t  The registration
\ncontinued to be operative till 22.10.1987. The assessment
\nperiods to which the dispute relates are (a) 27.10.1981 to
\n15.11.1982, (b) 16.11.1982 to 4.11.1983 and (c) 5.11.1983 to
\n24.10.1984. The assessments were originally completed for
\nthe assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84 vide
\norders dated 12.9.1984, 29.8.1985 and 29.8.1985
\nrespectively. Respondent applied cancellation of the
\ncertificate of registration on 14.12.1987 and the same was
\ncancelled w.e.f. 23.10.1987. The Assessing Officer initiated
\nproceedings for re-assessment under Section 19(1) of the Act
\non the basis of information that the respondent had
\npurchased iron and steel from M\/s Steel Terro, Indore and
\nhad enjoined certain benefits by issuing declaration forms
\nin Form XII-J. The Assessing Officer was of the view that
\nthe benefits were not permissible in law and, therefore,
\nthere was short levy of tax and escapement of assessment.
\nAccordingly, notices were issued for re-assessment in
\nrespect of the three years.\tThe notices were issued on the
\naddress as indicated in the certificate of registration. It
\nwas indicated in the notices that the same may be pasted if
\nthe respondent-assessee was not available or he refused to
\naccept the notice. Since it was learnt that the respondent-
\nassessee was not residing at the address given, service by
\naffixture was resorted to. Vide orders dated 13.12.1990,
\n13.12.1990  and 31.12.1990, re-assessments  were done under
\nSection 19(1) of the Act. On 23.4.1992, respondent-assessee
\nchallenged the orders of re-assessment by filing revision
\npetition before the revisional authority at Indore under
\nSection 39(1)(b) of the Act on the ground that the notices
\nand the orders of re-assessment as well as the original
\nassessment orders were not served on him, rendering the re-
\nassessment proceedings illegal. The revisional authority
\nvide 3 separate but common order dated 23.4.1993 dismissed
\nthe revision petition recording a finding that service in
\nboth the original assessments as well as re-assessment
\nproceedings had been duly effected by affixture and the
\norders were valid.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt was noted that respondent’s certificate of
\nregistration remained in force till he applied for
\ncancellation on 14.12.1987. As the notices were issued for
\nservice at the address given in the registration
\ncertificate, there was nothing illegal.\n<\/p>\n
\tRespondent-assessee filed a writ petition under
\nArticles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in
\nshort ‘the Constitution’)in the High Court of Madhya
\nPradesh, at Indore Bench on the ground that the procedure
\nprescribed for service of notice as contemplated under Rule
\n63 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 (in short ‘the
\nRules’) has not been followed. Accordingly, the principles
\nof natural justice were violated. He took a stand that after
\nclosure of business in October 1980, he was appointed as a
\nclerk, Grade II in Reserve Bank of India in November, 1980.
\nRevenue contested the writ petition by filing a counter
\naffidavit specifically stating that service had been duly
\neffected at the last known address as per the registration
\ncertificate. There was a duty enjoined on the dealer under
\nSection 32 of the Act to provide necessary information
\nregarding change of address which has not been done by the
\nrespondent-assessee who continued to enjoy the benefits by
\nissuing declaration forms by virtue of the certificate of
\nregistration up to 23.10.1987.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned Single Judge with reference to Rule 63 held
\nthat the service was effected properly inasmuch as the
\nAssessing Officer had failed to record the reasons for his
\nsatisfaction that the assessing was evading service or that
\nthe service was not possible in any other manner before
\nresorting to service by affixture as prescribed under Rule\n<\/p>\n
63.<\/p>\n
\tThe writ petition was allowed with a direction\tthat
\nthe re-assessments were to be done de novo in accordance
\nwith law after hearing the respondent-assessee within a
\nperiod of 6 months from the date of order and no further
\nnotice was required  as the respondent-dealer was already
\nappearing in the matter.\n<\/p>\n
\tChallenge was made by the respondent-assessee before a
\nDivision Bench on the ground that after having held that
\nthere was no valid service of notice, the direction for de
\nnovo assessment was untenable. It was further contended that
\nchallenge on the question of limitation was precluded by the
\ndirection.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Division Bench held that the direction for de novo
\nassessment without reserving any right for the respondent-
\nassessee  to raise the plea of limitation was not proper.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
\nappellants submitted that the respondent-assessee cannot
\ntake advantage of his own lapses. He was required under
\nSection 32 of the Act to indicate the change of address.
\nAdmittedly, he did not do so. Merely because at some point
\nof time the departmental authorities sent letters by
\nredirecting service by post to deposit the arrear of tax, it
\ndoes not do away with the statutory requirement to inform
\nthe authorities about the change of address. Further,
\nlearned Single Judge had only found some procedural
\nirregularity which did not invalidate the service of notice.
\nTherefore, the direction for de novo assessment was in
\norder.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn response, learned counsel for the respondent-
\nassessee  submitted that the learned Single Judge clearly
\nheld that there was no proper service of notice and,
\ntherefore, there was no service in the eye of law. That
\nbeing the position, the re-assessment proceedings which were
\nto be completed within a particular period could not have
\nbeen extended by permitting de novo assessment.\n<\/p>\n
\tWhether service of notice is valid or not is
\nessentially a question of fact. In the instant case, learned
\nSingle Judge found that certain procedures were not followed
\nwhile effecting service by affixture. There was no finding
\nrecorded  that such service was nonest in the eye of law. In
\na given case if the assessee knows about the proceedings and
\nthere is some irregularity in the service of notice, the
\ndirection for continuing proceedings cannot be faulted. It
\nwould depend upon the nature of irregularity and its effect
\nand the question of prejudice which are to be adjudicated in
\neach case on the basis of surrounding facts. If, however,
\nthe service of notice is treated as nonest in the eye of
\nlaw, it would not be permissible to direct de novo
\nassessment without considering the question of limitation.
\nThere also the question of prejudice has to be considered.\n<\/p>\n
Both learned Single Judge and Division Bench have
\nmissed to notice that Section 19(1) does not speak of
\n“notice” before re-assessment.\tIt only prescribes giving
\nof “reasonable opportunity of being heard”. It reads as
\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n
“Where an assessment has been made under
\nthis Act or any Act repealed by Section
\n52 and if for any reason any sale or
\npurchase of goods chargeable to tax
\nunder this Act or any Act repealed by
\nSection 52 during any period has been
\nunder-assessed or has escaped assessment
\nor assessed at a lower rate or any
\ndeduction has been wrongly made
\ntherefrom, the Commissioner may, at any
\ntime within five calendar years from the
\ndate of order of assessment, after giving
\nthe dealer a reasonable opportunity of
\nbeing heard and after making such enquiry
\nas he considers necessary, proceed in
\nsuch manner as may be prescribed to
\nreassess within a period of two calendar
\nyears from the commencement of such
\nproceedings, the tax payable by such
\ndealer and the Commissioner may, where
\nthe omission leading to such reassessment
\nis attributable to the dealer, direct
\nthat the dealer shall pay, by way of
\npenalty in addition to the amount of tax
\nso assessed a sum not exceeding that
\namount:\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that in case of an
\nassessment made under any Act repealed by
\nSection 52, the period for reassessment
\non the ground of under-assessment,
\nescapement or wrong deduction shall be as
\nprovided in such Act notwithstanding the
\nrepeal thereof :\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided further that any
\nreassessment proceedings pending on the
\ndate of commencement of the Madhya
\nPradesh General Sales Tax (Amendment)
\nAct,1978, be completed in accordance with
\nthe provisions in force before the date
\nof such commencement and within a period
\nof two calendar years from the date of
\nsuch commencement.”\n<\/p>\n
\tRule 63 deals with methods of serving notice or
\nsummons or order under the Act or any rules made
\nthereunder.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe term “notice” is originated from the Latin word
\n“notifia” which means “a being known” or a knowing is
\nwide enough in legal circle to include a plaint filed in a
\nsuit. “Notice” has been defined in various Judicial
\nDictionaries and Dictionaries as follows :
\nThe Judicial Dictionary, Words and Phrases Judicially
\nInterpreted, Second Edn. By F. Stroud,\t(p.1299) :
\n\t“Notice is a direct and definite
\nstatement of a thing, as distinguished from
\nsupplying materials from which the existence
\nof such thing may be inferred.”\n<\/p>\n
Webster’s Universal College Dictionary, 1997 Edn. (p.543) :
\n\t“Information, warning or announcement
\nof something impending; notification; to
\ngive notice of one’s intentions; a written
\nor printed statement conveying such
\ninformation or warning; as for renting or
\nemployment, that the agreement will
\nterminate on a specified date. “She gave
\nher employer two weeks’ notice.”\n<\/p>\n
Oxford Concise Dictionary :\n<\/p>\n
\t“an intimation; intelligence, warning”
\nand has the  meaning in expression like
\n“give notice”, “have notice” or “formal
\nintimation of something or instruction to do
\nsomething” and has the expression like
\n“notice to quit”, “till further notice”.\n<\/p>\n
Chamber’s 20th Century Dictionary 1993 (p.1154) :
\n“intimation; announcement; information;
\nwarning; a writing; placard, etc; conveying
\nan intimation or warning; time allowed for
\npreparation, etc.”\n<\/p>\n
Chamber’s Dictionary vide Allied Chambers (India) Ltd;
\nReprint 1994, 1995 (p. 1154) :\n<\/p>\n
\t“intimation; announcement; a formal
\nannouncement made by one of the parties to a
\ncontract of his or her intention to
\nterminate that contract; information,
\nespecially about a future event; warning; a
\nwriting; placard, board, etc. conveying an
\nintimation or warning; time allowed for
\npreparation; cognizance; observation; heed;
\nmention; a dramatic or artistic review;
\ncivility or respectful treatment; a notion,
\netc.”\n<\/p>\n
Law Lexicon Dictionary\tA Legal Dictionary of Legal Terms
\nand Phrases Judicially Defined. Fourth Edition, Vol.II,
\n1989(P.226):\n<\/p>\n
\t‘A person is said to have notice’ of a
\nfact, when he actually knows that fact, or
\nwhen, but for wilful abstention from an
\nenquiry or search which he ought to have
\nmade, or gross negligence, he would have
\nknown it.’<\/p>\n
The Law Lexicon Dictionary, Second Edition, 1997 (p. 1322) :
\n\t(1)\tIntimation; a writing; placard,
\nboard, etc. conveying an intimation or
\nwarning (section 154, IPC and Article
\n61(2)(a), Constitution of India); (2)
\nKnowledge or cognizance (Section 56, Indian
\nEvidence Act).\n<\/p>\n
\t“Notice”, in its legal sense, may be defined as
\ninformation concerning a fact actually communicated  to a
\nparty by an authorized person, or actually derived by him
\nfrom a proper source, or else presumed by law to have been
\nacquired by him, which information is regarded as equivalent
\nto knowledge in its legal consequences.\n<\/p>\n
Dictionary further states:\n<\/p>\n
\tCo.Lit 309 Tomlin’s Law Dictionary
\n\tNotice is making something known, of what a man was or
\nmight be ignorant of before. And it produces diverse
\neffects, for, by it, the party who gives the same shall have
\nsame benefit, which otherwise he should not have had; the
\nparty to whom the notice is given is made subject to some
\naction or charge, that otherwise he had not been liable to;
\nand his estate in danger of prejudice.\n<\/p>\n
\t“Notice is a direct and definite statement of a thing
\nas distinguished from supplying materials from which the
\nexistence of such thing may be inferred.” (Per Parke, B.
\nBurgh v Lege 5 M and W 420: 8 LJ, Ex.258)<\/p>\n
\tThe Dictionary gives some other definitions of
\n“Notice” as:\n<\/p>\n
– The legal instrumentality by which
\nknowledge is conveyed, or by which one is
\ncharged with knowledge.\n<\/p>\n
– The term “notice” in its full legal
\nsense embraces a knowledge of circumstances
\nthat ought to induce suspicion or belief, as
\nwell as direct information of that fact.\n<\/p>\n
– In its popular sense, “notice” is
\nequivalent to information intelligence, or
\nknowledge.\n<\/p>\n
In Anandji Haridas and Co. (P) Ltd V. S.P.Kasture and
\nOthers (AIR<\/a> 1968 SC 565), it was observed as follows :\n<\/p>\n
“We are unable to accept the contention
\nof Mr. Gokhale that a notice under Section 11
\n(4) (a) or IIA(1) is a condition precedent for
\ninitiating proceedings under those provisions or
\nthat it is the very foundation for the
\nproceedings to be taken under those provisions.
\nThe notice contemplated under Rule 32 is not
\nsimilar to a notice to be issued under Section
\n34 (1) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1922.\t All
\nthat Sections 11(4) and 11A (1) prescribe is
\nthat before taking proceedings against an
\nassessee under those provisions, he should be
\ngiven a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
\nIn fact, those sections do not speak of any
\nnotice.\t But Rule 32 prescribes the manner in
\nwhich the reasonable opportunity contemplated by
\nthose provisions should be afforded to the
\nassessee.  The period of 30 days prescribed in
\nRule 32 is not mandatory.  The rule itself says
\nthat ‘ordinarily’ not less than 30 days notice
\nshould be given.  Therefore, the only question
\nto be decided is whether the defects noticed in
\nthose notices had prejudiced the appellants.  It
\nmay be noted that when the assessees received
\nthe notices in question, they appeared before
\nthe assessing authority, but they did not object
\nto the validity of those notices.  They asked
\nfor time for submitting their explanation.  The
\ntime asked for was given.  Therefore, the fact
\nthat only nine days were given to them for
\nsubmitting explanation could not have in any
\nmanner prejudiced them.\t So far as the mistake
\nin the notice as regards the assessment year is
\nconcerned, the assessees kept silent about that
\ncircumstance till 1958.\t It was only when they
\nwere sure that the period of limitation
\nprescribed by Section 11A had expired, they
\nbrought that fact to the notice of the assessing
\nauthority.  It is clear that the appellants were
\nmerely trying to take advantage of the mistakes
\nthat had crept into the notices.  They cannot be
\npermitted to do so.  We fail to see why those
\nnotices are not valid in respect of the periods
\ncommencing from February 1, 1953 till 31.10.55.
\nWe are unable to agree with Mr. Gokhale’s
\ncontention that each one of those notices should
\nbe read separately and that we should not
\nconsider them together.\t If those notices are
\nread together as we think they should be, then
\nit is clear that those notices given the
\nappellants the reasonable opportunity
\ncontemplated by Sections 11(4) (a) and 11-A (1).
\nIn Chatturam V. Commr. Of Income Tax  Bihar,
\n(1947 (15) ITR 302) = (AIR 1947 FC 32), the
\nFederal Court held that any irregularity in
\nissuing a notice under S. 22 of the Income Tax
\nAct,1922 does not vitiate the proceeding; that
\nthe income tax assessment proceedings commence
\nwith the issue of the notice but the issue or
\nreceipt of the notice is, however, not the
\nfoundation of the jurisdiction of the income tax
\nofficer to make the assessment or of the
\nliability of the assessee to pay the tax.  The
\nliability to pay the tax is founded on Sections
\n3 and 4 of the Income Tax Act which are the
\ncharging sections.  Section 22 and others are
\nthe machinery sections to determine the amount
\nof tax.\t The ratio of that decision applies to
\nthe facts of the present case.\tIn our opinion,
\nthe notices issued in the year 1955 are valid
\nnotices so far as they relate to the period
\ncommencing from February 1, 1953 to October 31,
\n1955.”\n<\/p>\n
\tWhenever an order is struck down as invalid being
\nviolation of principles of natural justice, there is no
\nfinal decision of the case and, therefore, proceedings are
\nleft open. All that is done is that the order assailed by
\nvirtue of its inherent defect is vacated but the
\nproceedings are not terminated. (See Guduthur Bros. V.
\nIncome Tax Officer, Special Circle, Bangalore<\/a> (1960 (40)
\nITR 298 SC) and Superintendent (Tech.I) Central
\nExcise,I.D.D. Jabalpur and Ors. v. Pratap Rai<\/a> (1978 (114)
\nITR 231 SC). In Commisioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. R.P.
\nDixit Saghidar<\/a> ( 2001 (9) SCC 324), it was held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“We are unable to subscribe to the
\nview of the High Court. The aforementioned
\npassage quoted from the Tribunal’s order
\nshows that the Tribunal was of the view that
\nonce the order is quashed by the Assistant
\nCommissioner, he could not in law remand the
\ncase for a decision afresh. As has been
\nnoted, before the Assistant Commissioner the
\ncounsel for the respondent had contended
\nthat the  ex parte order should\t have been
\nset aside because no notice had been
\nreceived. When principles of natural justice
\nare stated to have been violated it is open
\nto the appellate authority, in appropriate
\ncases, to set aside the order and require
\nthe Assessing Officer to decide the cases de
\nnovo. This is precisely what was directed by
\nthe Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal,
\nin our opinion, was clearly in error in
\ntaking a contrary view.”\n<\/p>\n
The view is clearly applicable to the facts of the present
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
The emerging principles are:-\n<\/p>\n
(i) Non-issue of notice or mistake in the issue of
\nnotice or defective service of notice does not affect the
\njurisdiction of the assessing officer, if otherwise
\nreasonable opportunity of being heard has been given;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Issue of notice as prescribed in the Rules
\nconstitutes a part of reasonable opportunity of being
\nheard;\n<\/p>\n
(iii) If prejudice has been caused by non-issue or
\ninvalid service of notice the proceeding would be vitiated.
\nBut irregular service of notice would not render the
\nproceedings invalid; more so, if assessee by his conduct
\nhas rendered service impracticable or impossible.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv)\tIn a given case when the principles of natural
\njustice are stated to have been violated it is open to the
\nappellate authority in appropriate cases to set aside the
\norder and require the Assessing Officer to decide the case
\nde novo.\n<\/p>\n
 In the instant case, the learned Single Judge and the
\nDivision Bench have not considered the question of
\nprejudice, grant of reasonable opportunity in the aforesaid
\nperspective.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn view of what has been stated in R.P.Dixit’s case
\n(supra), learned Single Judge was justified in directing de
\nnovo assessment by an order of remand. The direction was
\nappropriate as the only ground on which the interference
\nwas made related to the violation of principles of natural
\njustice by alleged improper service of notice. The Division
\nBench was not justified in upsetting the direction. The
\nappeal is allowed but in the circumstances without any
\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
We however make it clear that no opinion has been
\nexpressed by us on any aspect except limitation. It shall be
\nopen to the assessee to raise all other issues before the
\nAssessing Officer which shall be considered in the proper
\nperspective and in accordance with law.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Sales Tax & Ors vs M\/S Subhash & Company on 17 February, 2003 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil, Arijit Pasayat CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1374 of 2003 PETITIONER: Commissioner of Sales Tax & Ors. RESPONDENT: M\/s Subhash & Company DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/02\/2003 BENCH: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL […]<\/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-15493","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Sales Tax & Ors vs M\/S Subhash & Company on 17 February, 2003 - 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\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-ors-vs-ms-subhash-company-on-17-february-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Sales Tax & Ors vs M\/S Subhash & Company on 17 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-ors-vs-ms-subhash-company-on-17-february-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-09T22:42:20+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\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-ors-vs-ms-subhash-company-on-17-february-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-ors-vs-ms-subhash-company-on-17-february-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Sales Tax & Ors vs M\\\/S Subhash & Company on 17 February, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-09T22:42:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-ors-vs-ms-subhash-company-on-17-february-2003\"},\"wordCount\":3166,\"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\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-ors-vs-ms-subhash-company-on-17-february-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-ors-vs-ms-subhash-company-on-17-february-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-ors-vs-ms-subhash-company-on-17-february-2003\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Sales Tax & Ors vs M\\\/S Subhash & Company on 17 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-09T22:42:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-ors-vs-ms-subhash-company-on-17-february-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-ors-vs-ms-subhash-company-on-17-february-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-ors-vs-ms-subhash-company-on-17-february-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Sales Tax & Ors vs M\\\/S Subhash & Company on 17 February, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax & Ors vs M\/S Subhash & Company on 17 February, 2003 - 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\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-ors-vs-ms-subhash-company-on-17-february-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax & Ors vs M\/S Subhash & Company on 17 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-ors-vs-ms-subhash-company-on-17-february-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-09T22:42:20+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\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-ors-vs-ms-subhash-company-on-17-february-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-ors-vs-ms-subhash-company-on-17-february-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax & Ors vs M\/S Subhash & Company on 17 February, 2003","datePublished":"2003-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-09T22:42:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-ors-vs-ms-subhash-company-on-17-february-2003"},"wordCount":3166,"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\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-ors-vs-ms-subhash-company-on-17-february-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-ors-vs-ms-subhash-company-on-17-february-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-ors-vs-ms-subhash-company-on-17-february-2003","name":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax & Ors vs M\/S Subhash & Company on 17 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-09T22:42:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-ors-vs-ms-subhash-company-on-17-february-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-ors-vs-ms-subhash-company-on-17-february-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-ors-vs-ms-subhash-company-on-17-february-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax & Ors vs M\/S Subhash & Company on 17 February, 2003"}]},{"@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\/15493","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=15493"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15493\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15493"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15493"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15493"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}