{"id":165497,"date":"2011-09-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-30-september-2011"},"modified":"2016-11-30T22:55:46","modified_gmt":"2016-11-30T17:25:46","slug":"commissioner-vs-in-on-30-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-30-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs In on 30 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Commissioner vs In on 30 September, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Akil Kureshi, Gokani,<\/div>\n
  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n    \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/21\/2011\t 8\/ 8\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 21 of 2011\n \n\nTo\n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 23 of 2011\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER\nCENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nM\/S\nULTRATECH CEMENT LTD - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nYN RAVANI for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMR AP NAINAWATI for Opponent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 30\/09\/2011 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)<\/p>\n
\tRevenue
\nhas challenged the common judgment of the Tribunal dated 29.6.2010.
\nWhile issuing notice of final disposal, we had framed substantial
\nquestion of law  for consideration in following terms :\n<\/p>\n
“Whether
\nthe service tax credits on services of Insurance for residential
\ncolony buildings is admissible, when such services  are not related
\ndirectly or indirectly to the manufacture of final product, as input
\nservice defined under Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004?”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nresponse to such notice, learned counsel Shri Anand Nainawati
\nappeared for the respondent.  We have heard both sides  for final
\ndisposal of the appeals.\n<\/p>\n
\tRespondent
\n company is a manufacturer of cement.  Respondent clears its goods
\nmanufactured by it upon payment  of excise duty and also availed
\nCenvat  credit  in respect of  duty paid input  and capital goods
\nused in manufacture of such  final product.  Department, however, was
\nof the opinion that certain services on which the assessee was
\nclaiming Cenvat credit was not allowable as per the rules.  In the
\npresent case, we are concerned  with the Cenvat credit claimed by the
\nassessee  on service tax  paid on services of insurance services for
\nresidential colony.  The Tribunal in the impugned   judgment allowed
\nsuch a claim.  The Tribunal rejected the Revenue’s contention  that
\nsuch services are not  used directly or indirectly in the manufacture
\nof the final product and upheld the assessee’s contention  that the
\nphrase “activities relating to business” as appearing in
\nthe inclusive part of the definition of input service is wide enough
\nto  cover such services.    The Tribunal distinguished  the decision
\nof the Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (2009
\nTIOL-94-SC-DX).  The Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the
\nDelhi Bench  in the case of M\/s.Triveni Engg.  & Industrial Ltd.
\nv. CCE, Meerut, 2008 (12) STR 330 (Tri-Del.).\n<\/p>\n
\tCounsel
\nfor the Revenue submitted that services cannot be  stated to be
\nutilized for  manufacturing of final product.  He submitted that the
\nsame would not be covered by the definition of the term ‘input
\nservice’ as defined in rule 2(l) of the Cenvat  Credit Rules.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn
\nthe other hand, counsel for the respondent, supported the decision of
\nthe Tribunal contending that no question of law arises  and tax
\nappeals may therefore be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore
\nus both sides brought our attention to a decision of this Bench in
\nthe case of Commissioner of C.Ex. & Customs   v.  Gujarat
\nHeavy Chemicals Ltd.,<\/a> 2011 (22)
\nS.T.R.610 (Guj.).  It was a case wherein the assessee was claiming
\nCenvat credit on the service tax  on security services utilized for
\nresidential colony of the Company.  The Tribunal had accepted the
\nassessee’s case.  The Department had thereupon approached this Court
\nby  filing Tax Appeal.  Such Tax Appeal was allowed by the
\nabove-mentioned decision dated 11.5.2011. Since the issue dealt with
\nby this Court in the said decision is closely connected with the
\npresent controversy, we may  record the discussion and finding in
\nsuch judgment, as under:\n<\/p>\n
“7.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel for the Revenue submitted that service tax paid  on
\nsecurity service maintained by the assessee in the residential
\nquarters cannot be covered under the definition ‘input service’ as
\ndefined in rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.  He submitted that
\nthere is no nexus  between the business activity of the assessee  and
\nservice provided.  Reliance was placed on the decision of the Bombay
\nHigh Court in the case of CCE, Nagpur  v. Manikgarh Cement,<\/a>
\n2010(20) STR 456 (Bom.).    He pointed out that the Tribunal in the
\nimpugned judgment has placed reliance on a decision  of Bombay
\nTribunal in the case of
\nManikgarh Cement  v. Commissioner of C.Ex. & Customs, Nagpur
\nreported in 2008(9) STR 554 (Tri.-Mumbai) which was reversed by the
\nBombay High Court in the case Manikgarh Cement (supra).  Counsel also
\nrelied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Maruti
\nSuzuki Ltd  v.  CCE, Delhi, 2009
\n(240) ELT 641 (SC).\n<\/p>\n
8.\tOn
\nthe other hand, counsel for the respondent assessee contended that
\nthe definition of the term  ‘input service’ contained in section
\n2(l) of the Cenvat Rules is  sufficiently wide  to include range of
\nservices  used by the manufacturer for and or in relation to
\nbusiness.  Counsel pointed out that the Bombay High Court
\nsubsequently in the case of  CCE, Nagpur  v.  Ultra Tech
\nCement Ltd., 2010 (20) STR
\n577(Bom.) has examined the issue at length and held that  outdoor
\ncatering services provided by the manufacturer is an ‘input service’
\nwithin the meaning of rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.  Counsel
\nfurther relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case
\nof Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd   v.  CCE Pune, III,
\n2009 (15) STR 657 (Bom.) wherein the Bombay High Court was pleased to
\nallow  benefit of Cenvat Credit on service tax to the manufacturer of
\nconcentrate on advertising service used for marketing of soft drink.
\n  Counsel also relied on a decision  of the Apex court in the case of
\nRamala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd.  v. CCE, Meerut -I,
\n2010 (260) ELT 321 (SC) by which, the decision of the Apex Court in
\nthe case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd (supra) has been referred to a Larger
\nBench.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tHaving
\nthus heard the learned  counsel for the parties, short question  that
\nconfronts us is whether the security service provided by the
\nrespondent at the residential quarters  maintained  for the workers
\nwould be included   in the term ‘input service’ as defined in rule
\n2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.  Term ‘input service’ has been
\ndefined in section 2(l) as under:\n<\/p>\n
“”Input
\n\tservice” means any service –\n<\/p>\n
used
\n\tby a provider of taxable service for providing an output service, or<\/p>\n
used
\n\tby the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in
\n\trelation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final
\n\tproducts from the place of removal,<\/p>\n
and
\n\tincludes services used in relation to setting up, modernization,
\n\trenovation or repairs of a factory, premises of provider of output
\n\tservice or an office relation to such factory or premises,
\n\tadvertisement or sales promotion, market research, storage upto the
\n\tplace of removal, procurement of inputs, activities relating to
\n\tbusiness, such as accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and
\n\tquality control, coaching and training, computer networking,credit
\n\trating, share registry, and security, inward transportation of
\n\tinputs or capital goods and outward  transportation upto the place
\n\tof removal;”\n<\/p>\n
10.\tDefinition
\nof input service is expressed in the form of ‘means’ and ‘includes’.
\n‘Means’ part of the definition contains, inter alia,  service used
\nby the manufacturer whether  directly or indirectly or in relation to
\n the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products
\nfrom the place of removal.  This definition, of course,  is worded to
\ninclude variety of services used not only for, but in relation to
\nmanufacture of final products and also for clearance of final
\nproducts  upto the place of removal. This Court in Tax Appeal No.419
\nof 2010 and connected matters  decided on 6th
\nApril 2011 held that the said definition is exhaustive in nature.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tDespite
\nsuch wide connotation of the term ‘input service’  as defined in rule
\n2(l) of the Cenvat Rules, the question is whether  the present case
\nwould be covered in the said definition.   Facts are short and not in
\ndispute.  Respondent assessee, manufacturer of soda ash,  has
\nprovided residential quarters for its workers.  In such  residential
\nquarters, the assessee also provided  security services.  Can such
\nsecurity services be stated to be   service used by the manufacturer
\ndirectly or indirectly in  or in relation to the manufacture of final
\nproduct ?  Our answer   has to be in the negative.  We do not see
\nany connection between the security service provided by the
\nmanufacturer  in the residential  quarters maintained for the workers
\nas having any direct or indirect relation  in the activity of
\nmanufacture of the final product.  This is also the view of the
\nBombay High Court in the case of Manikgarh Cement (supra).\n<\/p>\n
12.\tWe
\nmay notice that the Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd.
\n(supra) was of the opinion that the electricity generated by the
\nassessee and cleared to grid for distribution  would not be part of
\nmanufacturing activity and be categorized  as input used in
\nmanufacture of final product. We are conscious  that the said
\ndecision of the Apex court is referred to Larger Bench. However, at
\nthis stage, the ratio laid down therein prevails.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tIn
\nthe case of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd.  (supra), on which counsel for the
\n respondent has placed heavy reliance, the Bombay High Court was
\nconsidering  outdoor catering service provided  by the employer for
\nits employees.   It was a case wherein to provide for the canteen
\nfacilities to the workers was mandatory and failure to  do so  would
\nentail penal consequences.  It was on this background, the Bombay
\nHigh Court held that outdoor catering services  provided by the
\nmanufacturer to its workers  would be covered  within  provisions of
\nrule 2(l) of  the Rules.  In the present case,  the act of providing
\nresidential quarters  by the  manufacturer  to its employees was
\nvoluntary. Providing further  security service in such residential
\nquarters was also an act voluntary in nature.   Independently, we
\nfind that such activity cannot be termed  within the sweep of
\nexpression  of ‘input service’ as provided in rule 2(l) of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tIn
\nthe result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed.    The question is answered
\nin favour of the  Revenue and against the assessee.  The impugned
\njudgment of the Tribunal is set aside.  Appeal is disposed of
\naccordingly.”\n<\/p>\n
\tTo
\nour mind, though there is somewhat difference in  the nature of
\nservices  involved in the present appeals, in so far as all material
\naspects are concerned, the entire issue has been discussed threadbare
\n and decided in the above-mentioned judgment in the case of Gujarat
\nHeavy Chemicals Ltd.  As already noted,  in the case of Gujarat Heavy
\nChemicals Ltd., the Court was considering the eligibility of the
\nmanufacturer to avail Cenvat credit on the service tax  credit on
\nsecurity services in residential colony of the Company.  In the
\npresent case,  the issue presented  before us  pertains to service
\ntax credit on insurance of the vehicles.  We may notice that such
\nvehicles are used only for the residents of the colony and not for
\nthe business purpose of the Company. Such being the facts,  decision
\nof this Court in the the case of Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. (supra)
\nwould conclude the issue.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nthe result, following the ratio of the decision in the case of
\nGujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd. (supra), we  hold that the assessee
\nwould not be entitled to  Cenvat credit on service tax paid on such
\nservices.   The decision of the Tribunal is therefore,  reversed. To
\nthe above extent, all the tax appeals are allowed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t(Akil
\nKureshi J.)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t(Ms.Sonia
\nGokani, J.)<\/p>\n
(vjn)<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Commissioner vs In on 30 September, 2011 Author: Akil Kureshi, Gokani, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/21\/2011 8\/ 8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 21 of 2011 To TAX APPEAL No. 23 of 2011 ========================================================= COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS – Appellant(s) Versus […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-165497","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner vs In on 30 September, 2011 - 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-vs-in-on-30-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner vs In on 30 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-30-september-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-30T17:25:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-30-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-30-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs In on 30 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-30T17:25:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-30-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1788,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-30-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-30-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-30-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs In on 30 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-30T17:25:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-30-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-30-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-30-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs In on 30 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner vs In on 30 September, 2011 - 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-vs-in-on-30-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs In on 30 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-30-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-30T17:25:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-30-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-30-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs In on 30 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-30T17:25:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-30-september-2011"},"wordCount":1788,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-30-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-30-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-30-september-2011","name":"Commissioner vs In on 30 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-30T17:25:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-30-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-30-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-30-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs In on 30 September, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165497","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=165497"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165497\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=165497"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=165497"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=165497"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}