{"id":178872,"date":"2010-07-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-express-vs-commissioner-trade-tax-on-23-july-2010"},"modified":"2018-11-07T21:58:05","modified_gmt":"2018-11-07T16:28:05","slug":"s-g-express-vs-commissioner-trade-tax-on-23-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-express-vs-commissioner-trade-tax-on-23-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"S.G. Express vs Commissioner Trade Tax on 23 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S.G. Express vs Commissioner Trade Tax on 23 July, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>                                                                 Reserved\n\nCase :- SALES\/TRADE TAX REVISION No. - 1693 of 2006\n\n\nPetitioner :- S.G. Express\nRespondent :- Commissioner Trade Tax\nPetitioner Counsel :- Kunwar Saksena\nRespondent Counsel :- S.C.\n\n\nHon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>       The assessee is a transporter. He has filed this revision against the<br \/>\norder of the tribunal dated 2.8.2006 passed in second appeal no.134 of<br \/>\n2006, Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. Vs. S\/s. S.G.Express, Vishnu Gali,<br \/>\nVishwas Nagar, Sahadara, Delhi whereby the tribunal after setting aside<br \/>\nthe order of the first appellate authority allowed the appeal and upheld the<br \/>\npenalty of Rs.80,000\/- imposed by the assessing authority in exercise of<br \/>\nthe power under Section 13A(4) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred to as &#8220;the Act&#8221;).\n<\/p>\n<p>       The dispute of penalty relates to assessment year 2005-06. The<br \/>\nassessee was transporting 1026 suit cases allegedly from Delhi to<br \/>\nGuwahati vide trucks no. HR 55 B\/3185 and DEL 1E\/3625. He produced<br \/>\nthe relevant documents at the central check-post, T.P. Nagar, Ghaziabad<br \/>\nshowing the name of the consigner as Ashish Attachi Centre, 12\/6<br \/>\nMangolpuri, Delhi and insisted for issuance of the necessary Transit Form<br \/>\n34 in accordance with Section 28-B of the Act. The officer-in-charge of the<br \/>\ncheck-post instead of issuing Transit Form detained the goods on the<br \/>\nground that the consigner as disclosed in the documents produced is fake<br \/>\nand non-existent. The goods so seized were directed to be released on<br \/>\nfurnishing security of Rs.80,000\/-. On second appeal to the tribunal,<br \/>\nthough the seizure was upheld but the security was reduced to<br \/>\nRs.20,000\/-. The assessee on furnishing security and on release of the<br \/>\ngoods applied for Transit Form whereupon Transit Pass No.2859 dated<br \/>\n8.9.2005 was issued by the officer-in-charge of the check-post after due<br \/>\nverification of the documents which were found to be proper and in order.<br \/>\nThe assessee surrendered the aforesaid Transit Pass at the exist check-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                             2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>post while leaving U.P. on 8.9.2005. Even though the assessee was<br \/>\nissued a Transit Pass which he had validly submitted at the exit check-<br \/>\npost, penalty proceedings under Section 13A(4) of the Act were drawn<br \/>\nagainst him and a penalty of Rs.80,000\/- was imposed. The said penalty<br \/>\norder on appeal was set aside by the Joint Commissioner (Appeal), Trade<br \/>\nTax, Ghaziabad vide order dated 15.2.2006. However, on the second<br \/>\nappeal preferred by the department, the penalty order has been restored.<br \/>\nThus, this revision under Section 11 of the Act has been preferred by the<br \/>\nassessee.\n<\/p>\n<p>         I have heard Sri Kunwar Saxena, learned counsel for the assessee<br \/>\nand Sri Bipin Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>         Sri Saxena has argued that once the Transit Form was issued to<br \/>\nthe assessee and the same was duly submitted at the exist point, the<br \/>\npresumption is that the goods have passed through U.P. on valid<br \/>\ndocuments and, as such, there is no question of imposing penalty.\n<\/p>\n<p>         The submission of learned Standing Counsel in reply, is that as the<br \/>\nconsigner on enquiry was found to be fake and non-existent the authorities<br \/>\nrightly believed that the goods were being transported from within the<br \/>\nState of U.P. to outside with the intention to avoid trade tax.\n<\/p>\n<p>         Section 28-B of the Act is not a charging Section but it provides for<br \/>\na machinery to check evasion of trade tax and to ensure that the goods<br \/>\nwhich are being carried from one place to another through the State of<br \/>\nU.P. are not sold within the State of U.P. The aforesaid Section reads as<br \/>\nunder:\n<\/p>\n<p>                      &#8220;28-B.     Transit of goods by road through<br \/>\n               the State and issue of authorisation for transit of<br \/>\n               goods. &#8211; When a vehicle coming from any place<br \/>\n               outside the State and bound for any other place<br \/>\n               outside the State, and carrying goods referred to in<br \/>\n               sub-section (1) of Section 28-A, passes through the<br \/>\n               State, the driver or other person-in-charge of such<br \/>\n               vehicle shall obtain in the prescribed manner an<br \/>\n               authorisation for transit of goods from the officer-in-<br \/>\n               charge of the first check-post or barrier after his entry<br \/>\n               into the State and deliver it to the officer-in-charge of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                             3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>             the last check-post or barrier before his exit from the<br \/>\n             State, failing which it shall be presumed that the goods<br \/>\n             carried thereby have been sold within the State of the<br \/>\n             owner or person-in-charge of the vehicle:\n<\/p>\n<p>                    Provided that where the goods carried by such<br \/>\n             vehicle are, after their entry into the State, transported<br \/>\n             outside the State by any other vehicle or conveyance,<br \/>\n             the onus of proving that goods have actually moved<br \/>\n             out of the State shall be on the owner or person-in-<br \/>\n             charge of the vehicle.\n<\/p>\n<p>                    Explanation. &#8211; For the purpose of this section,<br \/>\n             the hirer of the vehicle shall also be deemed to be the<br \/>\n             owner of the vehicle.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      From a plain reading of Section 28-B of the Act it is evident that for<br \/>\ndrawing the presumption of sale of goods within the State of U.P. two<br \/>\nconditions are necessarily to be satisfied. First, the owner or the person-in-<br \/>\ncharge of the vehicle have failed to obtain the transit pass from the first<br \/>\ncheck-post or barrier; or\/and secondly he has failed to deliver it to the<br \/>\nofficer-in-charge of exit check-post while leaving the state of U.P. The<br \/>\naforesaid provision nowhere provides that any irregular or incorrect<br \/>\ndescription in the documents submitted for the purpose of obtaining transit<br \/>\nform or non-existent of the consigner would also attract the presumption<br \/>\nlaid down in the aforesaid provision or any penalty. At best, in the event of<br \/>\nabove irregularities, the officer-in-charge of the check-post can only detain<br \/>\nthe goods or refuse to issue transit form.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In the case at hand admittedly, a transit form was subsequently<br \/>\nissued to the assessee meaning thereby that the issuing authority was<br \/>\nsatisfied that the goods are coming from outside U.P. for being carried<br \/>\nthrough U.P. to a destination again outside U.P. It was duly produced at<br \/>\nthe exit check-post within time and no discrepancy in its production was<br \/>\nfound. Therefore, the twin conditions laid down under Section 28-B of the<br \/>\nAct for drawing the adverse inference of sale of the goods in the State of<br \/>\nU.P. were duly satisfied. Thus, the penalty provision of Section 13-A(4)<br \/>\ndoes not get attracted.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In view of above discussion, I am of the opinion that whether the<br \/>\nconsigner or transporter are fake or are not traceable is not a material<br \/>\nconsideration for drawing any adverse inference when the person-in-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                            4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>charge of the vehicle has obtained a valid transit pass at the entry check-<br \/>\npost and had duly produced the same at the exist check-post within time.<br \/>\nHere the obtaining of transit pass and its surrender is in conformity with<br \/>\nthe provision of Section 28-B of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>       In Madhya Bharat Transport Carrier, Agra Vs. Commissioner of<br \/>\nTrade Tax, U.P. 2003 NTN (Vol.23) 1009 it has been held that all that is<br \/>\nrequired to be seen is whether the goods have actually been brought from<br \/>\noutside of U.P. and taken outside of U.P. and that the goods must tally<br \/>\nwith the accompanying documents and as such it is wholly irrelevant<br \/>\nwhether the consignor or consignee are traceable or not.\n<\/p>\n<p>       In M\/s Murliwala Agrotech Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax,<br \/>\nU.P. Lucknow 2005 NTN (28) 198 it has been held by this Court that the<br \/>\ngoods being transported through U.P. cannot actually be seized at the<br \/>\nentry check-post, not even on the ground that the goods were different<br \/>\nfrom the goods declared in documents produced for obtaining transit form.\n<\/p>\n<p>       In view of the above, the validity of the seizure itself becomes<br \/>\ndoubtful and as such the imposition of penalty on the ground of seizure<br \/>\ncan not also be justified. It may be noted that it is not the case of the<br \/>\ndepartment that the goods as per the transit pass were unloaded within<br \/>\nthe State of U.P. or found to be different or not tallying with those<br \/>\nmentioned in the form or that they were not properly accounted.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Apart from the above, it is well recognised that for imposting penalty<br \/>\nthere must be a clear intention to evade payment of tax and mere seizure<br \/>\nof the goods cannot be sufficient in itself for imposing of penalty.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The tribunal has not recorded any finding of intention to evade tax<br \/>\non the part of the assessee in resorting to the order of penalty and has not<br \/>\neven taken into consideration the impact of the subsequent issuance of<br \/>\nthe transit pass to the assessee which impliedly indicates that the officer-<br \/>\nin-charge was satisfied that the goods were coming from outside U.P. for<br \/>\nbeing transported through U.P. to a destination outside U.P.\n<\/p>\n<p>       In the above background of facts and circumstances, no<br \/>\npresumption can legitimately be drawn that the goods were not actually<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                            5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>coming from outside U.P. Thus,, the penal provision of Section 13-A(4) of<br \/>\nthe Act does not get attracted.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In view of above facts and circumstances, the impugned order of<br \/>\nthe tribunal dated 2.8.2006 is unsustainable and is hereby set aside and<br \/>\nthat of the Joint Commissioner (Appeal), Trade Tax, Ghaziabad dated<br \/>\n15.2.2006 is restored and affirmed.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The revision accordingly stands allowed with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Order Date :- July 23, 2010<br \/>\nBK\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Allahabad High Court S.G. Express vs Commissioner Trade Tax on 23 July, 2010 Reserved Case :- SALES\/TRADE TAX REVISION No. &#8211; 1693 of 2006 Petitioner :- S.G. Express Respondent :- Commissioner Trade Tax Petitioner Counsel :- Kunwar Saksena Respondent Counsel :- S.C. Hon&#8217;ble Pankaj Mithal,J. The assessee is a transporter. He has filed this revision [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-178872","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>S.G. Express vs Commissioner Trade Tax on 23 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-express-vs-commissioner-trade-tax-on-23-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.G. Express vs Commissioner Trade Tax on 23 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-express-vs-commissioner-trade-tax-on-23-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-07T16:28:05+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-express-vs-commissioner-trade-tax-on-23-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-express-vs-commissioner-trade-tax-on-23-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.G. Express vs Commissioner Trade Tax on 23 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-07T16:28:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-express-vs-commissioner-trade-tax-on-23-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1519,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-express-vs-commissioner-trade-tax-on-23-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-express-vs-commissioner-trade-tax-on-23-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-express-vs-commissioner-trade-tax-on-23-july-2010\",\"name\":\"S.G. Express vs Commissioner Trade Tax on 23 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-07T16:28:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-express-vs-commissioner-trade-tax-on-23-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-express-vs-commissioner-trade-tax-on-23-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-g-express-vs-commissioner-trade-tax-on-23-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.G. Express vs Commissioner Trade Tax on 23 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"S.G. Express vs Commissioner Trade Tax on 23 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-express-vs-commissioner-trade-tax-on-23-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.G. Express vs Commissioner Trade Tax on 23 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-express-vs-commissioner-trade-tax-on-23-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-07T16:28:05+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-express-vs-commissioner-trade-tax-on-23-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-express-vs-commissioner-trade-tax-on-23-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.G. Express vs Commissioner Trade Tax on 23 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-07T16:28:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-express-vs-commissioner-trade-tax-on-23-july-2010"},"wordCount":1519,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-express-vs-commissioner-trade-tax-on-23-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-express-vs-commissioner-trade-tax-on-23-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-express-vs-commissioner-trade-tax-on-23-july-2010","name":"S.G. Express vs Commissioner Trade Tax on 23 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-07T16:28:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-express-vs-commissioner-trade-tax-on-23-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-express-vs-commissioner-trade-tax-on-23-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-g-express-vs-commissioner-trade-tax-on-23-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.G. Express vs Commissioner Trade Tax on 23 July, 2010"}]},{"@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\/178872","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=178872"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178872\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=178872"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=178872"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=178872"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}