{"id":17848,"date":"1979-10-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1979-10-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cement-marketing-co-of-india-ltd-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-on-30-october-1979"},"modified":"2016-12-14T22:58:13","modified_gmt":"2016-12-14T17:28:13","slug":"cement-marketing-co-of-india-ltd-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-on-30-october-1979","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cement-marketing-co-of-india-ltd-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-on-30-october-1979","title":{"rendered":"Cement Marketing Co. Of India Ltd vs Asstt. Commissioner Of … on 30 October, 1979"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Cement Marketing Co. Of India Ltd vs Asstt. Commissioner Of … on 30 October, 1979<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 346, \t\t 1980 SCR (1)1098<\/div>\n
Author: P Bhagwati<\/div>\n
Bench: Bhagwati, P.N.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCEMENT MARKETING CO. OF INDIA LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF SALES-TAX, INDORE & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT30\/10\/1979\n\nBENCH:\nBHAGWATI, P.N.\nBENCH:\nBHAGWATI, P.N.\nPATHAK, R.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1980 AIR  346\t\t  1980 SCR  (1)1098\n 1980 SCC  (1)\t71\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1981 SC1887\t (3,17)\n\n\nACT:\n     Madhya Pradesh  General Sales  Tax Act  1958,  S2(o)  &\nCentral Sales Tax Act 1956 S2(h)-'Sale Price'-Sale of cement\nunder Cement  Control Order-amount of 'freight'-whether part\nof 'sale  price'  includible  in  taxable  turnover  of\t the\nassessee.\n     Madhya Pradesh  General  Sales  Tax  Act  1958,  S43  &\nCentral Sales  Tax Act\t1956, S9(2)-'false' return-Bona fide\nbelief of  assessee that  that amount  of 'freight'  did not\nform part  of the  'sale price'\t and not  includible in\t the\ntaxable turnover-penalty whether leviable.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The assessee  (appellant) effected certain transactions\nof sale\t of cement  in accordance with the provisions of the\nCement Control\torder.\tThe  amount  of\t freight  which\t was\nincluded in  the 'free\ton rail destination railway station'\nprice and  which was paid by the purchaser was deducted from\nthe price  shown in the invoices sent to the purchasers. The\nassessee proceeding  on the basis that the amount of freight\ndid not\t form part  of the sale price and was not includible\nin the\ttaxable turnover  did not  show it  in\tthe  returns\nsubmitted by it.\n     The Assistant  Commissioner of  Sales Tax took the view\nthat having  regard to\tthe provisions of the Cement Control\nOrder, the  amount of  freight formed part of the sale price\nand was\t includible in the taxable turnover of the assessee,\nand passed  two orders\tof assessment, one under the Central\nSales Tax  Act 1956  and the  other under the Madhya Pradesh\nGeneral Sales Tax Act, 1958, including the amount of freight\nin the taxable turnover of the assessee and levying tax upon\nit and\talso imposing  heavy penalty  on the assessee on the\nground that  the assessee  had failed  to  disclose  in\t its\nreturns the amount of freight as forming part of the taxable\nturnover.\n     In appeals\t to this  Court on  the\t questions  of:\t (1)\ninclusion of  the amount  of freight in the taxable turnover\nof the\tassessee and  (2)  imposition  of  penalty  for\t not\nshowing the amount of freight as forming part of the taxable\nturnover in the returns.\n^\n     HELD: 1.  (i) The\tamount of freight formed part of the\nsale price  within the\tmeaning of  the first  part  of\t the\ndefinition of  that term  in  Section  2(o)  of\t the  Madhya\nPradesh General\t Sales Tax Act, 1958 and Section 2(h) of the\nCentral Sales,\tTax Act,  1956' and  was rightly included in\nthe taxable turnover of the assessee. [1101E]\n     (ii) In  Hindustan Sugar  Mills v.\t State of  Rajasthan<\/a>\n[1979] 1  SCR 276  this Court  held that  by reason  of\t the\nprovisions of the Cement Control Order, 1967, which governed\nthe transactions  of sale  of cement  entered  into  by\t the\nassessee the amount of freight formed part of the sale price\nwithin the meaning\n1099\nof the\tfirst part  of the definition of that term contained\nin Section  2(p) of  the Rajasthan  Sales Tax  Act, 1954 and\nSection 2(h)  of the  Central Sales  Tax Act,  1956 and\t was\nincludible in the taxable turnover of the assessee. The said\ndecision must equally apply under the Madhya Pradesh General\nSales Tax  Act, 1958,  as the  definition of 'sale price' in\nSection 2(o)  of the  Madhya Pradesh  General Sales Tax Act,\n1958 is\t materially in the same terms as Section 2(p) of the\nRajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. [1101C-E]\n     2(i) The  Assistant Commissioner  of Sales\t Tax was not\njustified in  imposing penalty on the assessee under Section\n43 of  the Madhya  Pradesh General  Sales Tax  Act, 1958 and\nsection 9  sub-section (2)  of the  Central Sales Tax Act of\n1956 as the assessee could not be said to have filed 'false'\nreturns when it did not include the amount of freight in the\ntaxable turnover shown in the returns. [1103C, B]\n     (ii) Section 43 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax\nAct, 1958  providing for imposition of penalty requires that\nthe assessee should have filed a 'false' return and a return\ncannot be  said to  be 'false' unless there is an element of\ndeliberateness in  it. The Section being penal in character,\nunless the  filing of an inaccurate return is accompanied by\na guilty  mind, the  section cannot  be invoked for imposing\npenalty. [1102D, 1102H]\n     (iii) Where  the assessee does not include a particular\nitem in the taxable turnover under a bonafide belief that he\nis not\tliable so  to include  it, it  would not be right to\ncondemn the  return as\ta 'false' return inviting imposition\nof penalty. [1102F]\n     Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa,<\/a> 25 S.T.C. 211,\nreferred to.\n     In the  instant case,  the assessee did not include the\namount of  freight in  the taxable turnover under a bonafide\nbelief that  the amount\t of freight did not form part of the\nsale price  and was  not includible in the taxable turnover.\nThe contention\tof the\tassessee through  out was  that on a\nproper construction  of the  definition of  'sale price'  in\nSection 2(o)  of the  Madhya Pradesh  General Sales Tax Act,\n1958 and  Section 2(h)\tof the\tCentral Sales Tax Act, 1956,\nthe amount of freight did not fall within the definition and\nwas not\t liable to  be included\t in the taxable turnover. It\ncannot be said that this was a frivolous contention taken up\nmerely for  the purpose\t of avoiding  liability to tax. This\nwas a  highly arguable contention. The belief entertained by\nthe assessee that it was not liable to include the amount of\nfreight in  the taxable\t turnover could\t not be\t said to  be\nmalafide or unreasonable. It cannot, therefore, be said that\nthe assessee  filed 'false' returns necessitating imposition\nof penalty. [1102A-D,E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 191-193
\nof 1978.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeals by\t Special Leave\tfrom the  Judgment and Order
\ndated 28-12-77\tof the\tAssistant Commissioner of Sales Tax,
\nIndore in  R. C. No. IND\/1\/X\/XIX\/5 in case No. 118\/72-73 for
\nthe period 1-8-71 to 31-7-72, R. C. No. IND\/I\/1344 (Central)
\nin Case No. 84\/72-73 for the period 1-8-71 to 31-7-72 and R.
\nC. No. IND\/I\/X\/XIX\/5 (TOT)
\n1100<\/span>
\nin Case No. 118\/72-73 for the period 15-11-71 to 31-7-72 and
\nrectified by orders dated 7-1-1978.\n<\/p>\n
     V. S.  Desai (CA  191\/78), B.  R. Agarwala\t and  P.  G.
\nGokhale for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     S. K. Gambhir for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     BHAGWATI,\tJ.-These  appeals  by  special\tleave  raise
\ncommon questions  of law  and  it  would  be  convenient  to
\ndispose them of by a single judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     The assessee  effected certain  transactions of sale of
\ncement in  accordance with  the\t provisions  of\t the  Cement
\nControl Order  during the assessment period Ist August, 1971
\nto 31st\t July, 1972  and in  the course of the assessment of
\nthe assessee  to sales\ttax under the Madhya Pradesh General
\nSales Tax  Act, 1958  and Central  Sales Tax  Act,  1956,  a
\nquestion arose\twhether the  amount  of\t freight  which\t was
\nincluded in  the ‘free\ton rail destination railway station’
\nprice, but  which was  paid  by\t the  purchasers  and  hence
\ndeducted from  the price  shown in  the invoices sent to the
\npurchasers, formed part of the sale price so as to be liable
\nto be  included in the taxable turnover of the assessee. The
\nassessee, proceeding on the basis that the amount of freight
\ndid not\t form part  of the sale price and was not includible
\nin the\ttaxable turnover did not show it in the returns, but
\nthe Assistant  Commissioner of\tSales Tax took the view that
\nhaving regard to the provisions of the Cement Control Order,
\nthe amount  of freight formed part of the sale price and was
\nincludible in  the taxable  turnover of\t the assessee and on
\nthis view, he passed two orders of assessment, one under the
\nCentral Sales  Tax Act,\t 1956 and the other under the Madhya
\nPradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, including the amount of
\nfreight in  the taxable turnover of the assessee and levying
\ntax upon  it and also imposing heavy penalty on the assessee
\non the\tground that  the assessee  had failed to disclose in
\nits returns  the amount\t of freight  as forming\t part of the
\ntaxable turnover.  The same position obtained also in regard
\nto the\tassessment period  15th November, 1971 to 31st July,
\n1972 and  a similar  order bringing the amount of freight to
\ntax and imposing heavy penalty on the assessee was passed by
\nthe Assistant  Commissioner of\tSales Tax  under the  Madhya
\nPradesh General\t Sales Tax  Act, 1958. Since the question as
\nto whether  in respect\tof transactions\t of sale  of  cement
\ngoverned by  the Cement Control Order, the amount of freight
\nformed part  of the sale price and was liable to be included
\nin the\ttaxable turnover of the dealer, was pending decision
\nin this Court, the assessee
\n1101<\/span>
\npreferred appeals  directly to\tthis Court  by special leave
\nagainst the  Orders of\tassessment  made  by  the  Assistant
\nCommissioner of\t Sales Tax.  The assessee  challenged in the
\nappeals not  only the  inclusion of the amount of freight in
\nthe  taxable   turnover\t of   the  assessee,  but  also\t the
\nimposition of  penalty for not showing the amount of freight
\nas forming part of the taxable turnover in the returns.\n<\/p>\n
     So far  as the  first question  is\t concerned,  namely,
\nwhether the  amount of freight formed part of the sale price
\nand was\t includible in\tthe taxable turnover of the assessee
\nso as  to be exigible to sales tax, it stands concluded by a
\nrecent decision given by this Court in Hindustan Sugar Mills
\nv. State  of Rajasthan\t& Ors.<\/a>(1)  It has  been held by this
\nCourt in  that case  that by reason of the provisions of the
\nCement Control\tOrder, 1967, which governed the transactions
\nof sale\t of cement  entered into  by the  assessee with\t the
\npurchasers, the\t amount of  freight formed  part of the sale
\nprice within the meaning of the first part of the definition
\nof that\t term contained in sec. 2 (p) of the Rajasthan Sales
\nTax Act, 1954 and section 2(h) of the Central Sales Tax Act,
\n1956 and  was includible  in the  taxable  turnover  of\t the
\nassessee. The  definition of ‘sale price’ in section 2(o) of
\nthe Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 is materially
\nin the same terms as section 2(p) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax
\nAct, 1954,  and this  decision must  therefore equally apply
\nunder the  Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and it
\nmust be\t held that  the amount of freight formed part of the
\nsale price  within the\tmeaning of  the first  part  of\t the
\ndefinition of  that term  in  section  2(o)  of\t the  Madhya
\nPradesh General\t Sales Tax  Act 1958 and section 2(h) of the
\nCentral Sales  Tax Act, 1956 and was rightly included in the
\ntaxable turnover of the assessee.\n<\/p>\n
     We may  point out\tthat the  observations made  by this
\nCourt in  the Order  dated 31st\t August, 1979  allowing\t the
\nReview Application  of the assessee in Hindustan Sugar Mills
\ncase (supra)  are equally applicable in the present case and
\nthe State  will do what is fair and just to the appellant as
\nindicated by this Court in that Order.\n<\/p>\n
     The next  question that  arises  for  consideration  is
\nwhether the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax was right in
\nimposing penalty  on the assessee for not showing the amount
\nof freight  as forming\tpart of\t the taxable turnover in its
\nreturns. The  penalty was  imposed under  section 43  of the
\nMadhya Pradesh\tGeneral Sales  Tax Act,\t 1958 and  section 9
\nsub-section (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on the
\n1102<\/span>
\nground that  the assessee had furnished false returns by not
\nincluding the  amount of  freight in  the  taxable  turnover
\ndisclosed in the returns. Now it is difficult to see how the
\nassessee could\tbe said\t to have filed ‘false’ returns, when
\nwhat the  assessee did,\t namely, not including the amount of
\nfreight in  the taxable turnover was under a bonafide belief
\nthat the  amount of  freight did  not form  part of the sale
\nprice and  was not  includible in  the taxable turnover. The
\ncontention of  the assessee  throughout was that on a proper
\nconstruction of\t the definition\t of ‘sale  price’ in section
\n2(o) of\t the Madhya  Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 and
\nsection 2(h)  of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the amount
\nof freight  did not  fall within  the definition and was not
\nliable to  be included in the taxable turnover. This was the
\nreason why  the assessee  did  not  include  the  amount  of
\nfreight in  the taxable turnover in the returns filed by it.
\nNow, it\t cannot be said that this was a frivolous contention
\ntaken up merely for the purpose of avoiding liability to pay
\ntax. It\t was a\thighly arguable\t contention  which  required
\nserious\t consideration\t by  the   Court  and\tthe   belief
\nentertained by\tthe assessee  that   it was  not  liable  to
\ninclude the  amount of freight in the taxable turnover could
\nnot be\tsaid to be malafide or unreasonable. What section 43
\nof the\tMadhya Pradesh\tGeneral Sales Tax Act, 1958 requires
\nis that\t the assessee should have filed a ‘false’ return and
\na return  cannot be  said to  be ‘false’  unless there is an
\nelement of  deliberateness in  it. It  is possible that even
\nwhere the  incorrectness of  the return is claimed to be due
\nto want\t of care on the part of the assessee and there is no
\nreasonable explanation\tforthcoming from  the  assessee\t for
\nsuch want  of care,  the Court\tmay, in\t a given case, infer
\ndeliberateness and the return may be liable to be branded as
\na false\t return. But  where the\t assessee does not include a
\nparticular item\t in the\t taxable turnover  under a  bonafide
\nbelief that  he is not liable so to include it, it would not
\nbe right  to condemn the return as a ‘false’ return inviting
\nimposition of  penalty. This view which is being taken by us
\nis supported  by the  decision of  this Court  in  Hindustan
\nSteel Limited  v. State\t of Orissa<\/a>(1) where it has been held
\nthat “even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority
\ncompetent  to  impose  the  penalty  will  be  justified  in
\nrefusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical venial
\nbreach of  the provisions  of the  Act or  where the  breach
\nflows from  a bona  fide belief\t that the  offender  is\t not
\nliable to  act in the manner prescribed by the statute…..”
\nIt is  elementary that\tsection 43  of\tthe  Madhya  Pradesh
\nGeneral Sales  Tax Act,\t 1958 providing\t for  imposition  of
\npenalty is  penal in  character and  unless the filing of an
\ninaccurate return  is accompanied  by  a  guilty  mind,\t the
\nsection cannot\tbe invoked for imposing penalty. If the view
\ncanvassed on behalf of the Revenue were accepted, the re-\n<\/p>\n
1103<\/span><\/p>\n
sult would  be that  even if  the assessee raises a bonafide
\ncontention that\t a particular  item  is\t not  liable  to  be
\nincluded in  the taxable  turnover, he would have to show it
\nas forming  part of  the taxable  turnover in his return and
\npay tax\t upon it on pain of being held liable for penalty in
\ncase his  contention is\t ultimately found by the Court to be
\nnot acceptable.\t That surely  could never have been intended
\nby the Legislature.\n<\/p>\n
     We are,  therefore, of the view that the assessee could
\nnot be\tsaid to\t have filed  ‘false’ returns when it did not
\ninclude the  amount of freight in the taxable turnover shown
\nin the\treturns and  the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax
\nwas not\t justified in imposing penalty on the assessee under
\nsection 43 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax, 1958 and
\nsection 9  sub-section (2)  of the  Central Sales  Tax\tAct,
\n1956.\n<\/p>\n
     We accordingly  reject the\t appeals in  so far they are
\ndirected against  the inclusion\t of the amount of freight in
\nthe taxable  turnover of  the assessee but allow the appeals
\nin so far as they relate to imposition of penalty of freight
\nin the\ttaxable turnover  of  the  assessee  but  allow\t the
\nappeals in  so far  as they  relate to imposition of penalty
\nand  set   aside  the\tOrders\tpassed\t by  the   Assistant
\nCommissioner of Sales Tax imposing penalty on the assessee.\n<\/p>\n
     There will be no order as to costs of the appeals.\n<\/p>\n
N. V. K.\t\t\t     Appeals partly allowed.\n1104<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Cement Marketing Co. Of India Ltd vs Asstt. Commissioner Of … on 30 October, 1979 Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 346, 1980 SCR (1)1098 Author: P Bhagwati Bench: Bhagwati, P.N. PETITIONER: CEMENT MARKETING CO. OF INDIA LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF SALES-TAX, INDORE & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT30\/10\/1979 BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. […]<\/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-17848","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCement Marketing Co. Of India Ltd vs Asstt. Commissioner Of ... on 30 October, 1979 - 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\/cement-marketing-co-of-india-ltd-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-on-30-october-1979\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Cement Marketing Co. Of India Ltd vs Asstt. Commissioner Of ... on 30 October, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cement-marketing-co-of-india-ltd-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-on-30-october-1979\" \/>\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=\"1979-10-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-14T17:28:13+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cement-marketing-co-of-india-ltd-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-on-30-october-1979#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cement-marketing-co-of-india-ltd-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-on-30-october-1979\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Cement Marketing Co. Of India Ltd vs Asstt. Commissioner Of … on 30 October, 1979\",\"datePublished\":\"1979-10-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-14T17:28:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cement-marketing-co-of-india-ltd-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-on-30-october-1979\"},\"wordCount\":1764,\"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\\\/cement-marketing-co-of-india-ltd-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-on-30-october-1979#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cement-marketing-co-of-india-ltd-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-on-30-october-1979\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cement-marketing-co-of-india-ltd-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-on-30-october-1979\",\"name\":\"Cement Marketing Co. Of India Ltd vs Asstt. Commissioner Of ... on 30 October, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1979-10-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-14T17:28:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cement-marketing-co-of-india-ltd-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-on-30-october-1979#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cement-marketing-co-of-india-ltd-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-on-30-october-1979\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cement-marketing-co-of-india-ltd-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-on-30-october-1979#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Cement Marketing Co. Of India Ltd vs Asstt. Commissioner Of … on 30 October, 1979\"}]},{\"@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":"Cement Marketing Co. Of India Ltd vs Asstt. Commissioner Of ... on 30 October, 1979 - 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\/cement-marketing-co-of-india-ltd-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-on-30-october-1979","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Cement Marketing Co. Of India Ltd vs Asstt. Commissioner Of ... on 30 October, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cement-marketing-co-of-india-ltd-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-on-30-october-1979","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1979-10-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-14T17:28:13+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cement-marketing-co-of-india-ltd-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-on-30-october-1979#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cement-marketing-co-of-india-ltd-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-on-30-october-1979"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Cement Marketing Co. Of India Ltd vs Asstt. Commissioner Of … on 30 October, 1979","datePublished":"1979-10-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-14T17:28:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cement-marketing-co-of-india-ltd-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-on-30-october-1979"},"wordCount":1764,"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\/cement-marketing-co-of-india-ltd-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-on-30-october-1979#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cement-marketing-co-of-india-ltd-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-on-30-october-1979","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cement-marketing-co-of-india-ltd-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-on-30-october-1979","name":"Cement Marketing Co. Of India Ltd vs Asstt. Commissioner Of ... on 30 October, 1979 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1979-10-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-14T17:28:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cement-marketing-co-of-india-ltd-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-on-30-october-1979#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cement-marketing-co-of-india-ltd-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-on-30-october-1979"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cement-marketing-co-of-india-ltd-vs-asstt-commissioner-of-on-30-october-1979#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Cement Marketing Co. Of India Ltd vs Asstt. Commissioner Of … on 30 October, 1979"}]},{"@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\/17848","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=17848"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17848\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17848"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17848"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17848"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}