{"id":180429,"date":"2002-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-10-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peria-karamalai-tea-produce-vs-tamil-nadu-taxation-special-on-29-october-2002"},"modified":"2018-11-04T10:53:09","modified_gmt":"2018-11-04T05:23:09","slug":"ms-peria-karamalai-tea-produce-vs-tamil-nadu-taxation-special-on-29-october-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peria-karamalai-tea-produce-vs-tamil-nadu-taxation-special-on-29-october-2002","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.Peria Karamalai Tea & Produce vs Tamil Nadu Taxation Special on 29 October, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S.Peria Karamalai Tea & Produce vs Tamil Nadu Taxation Special on 29 October, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 29\/10\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN\n\nW.P.NO.14934 OF 2000\n\nM\/s.Peria Karamalai Tea & Produce\nCo.Ltd., 234-A, Race Course Road,\nCoimbatore                          ...  Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. Tamil Nadu Taxation Special\n   Tribunal, rep.by Registrar,\n   Singaravelan Maligai, Rajaji\n   Salai, Chennai-600 001.\n\n2. State of Tamil Nadu rep.by\n   Deputy Commissioner (CT)\n   Coimbatore, Commercial Taxes\n   Building, Balasundaram Road,\n   Coimbatore-641 018.              ...   Respondents\n\n        Prayer:  Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution  of\nIndia  for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus as stated\ntherein.\n\nFor Petitioner :  Mr.K.J.Chandran for\n                Mr.M\/s.Chandran\n\nFor Respondents:  Mr.T.Ayyasami,Spl.Govt.\n                Pleader (Taxes)\n\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN,J.\n<\/p>\n
        The above writ petition is filed against the judgment of the  Taxation
\nSpecial  Tribunal made in Tax Case (Revision) No.2060 of 1997 dated 28.3.2000,
\nwhereby the claim of exemption of a turnover of Rs.17,55,1 35.20ps  being  the
\nsales  turnover of “cardamom” on the ground that the “cardamom” as sold by the
\npetitioner was agricultural produce has been rejected by the Special  Tribunal
\nand thereby confirmed the orders of the authorities below.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The facts of the case are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        The  petitioner  is  a  registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General
\nSales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred  to  as  “the  Act”)  and  regularly
\ndealing in  tea, rice, wheat and sugar.  For the assessment year 1 989-90, the
\npetitioner reported a taxable turnover of Rs.11,06,360\/- under the Act.    The
\nAssessing  Officer  during the check of accounts had found that the petitioner
\nhad sold cardamom grown in their own estate and claimed exemption  in  respect
\nof  the sales turnover of the ” cardamom” under Section 2(r) of the TNGST Act,
\n1959.  The Assessing Officer had rejected the claim of exemption on the ground
\nthat the agricultural produce produced by the  petitioner  had  undergone  the
\nprocess  of  curing  with  much  care in the curing house by heat treatment by
\nmaintaining a particular degree of centigrade  for  several  hours  so  as  to
\npreserve and also to get good shining and flavour to fetch a good price in the
\nmarket.   The  curing process with which agricultural produce was subjected to
\nis not “mere drying, cleaning or sorting” so as to enable  the  petitioner  to
\nclaim exemption  under  Section  2(r).  The process of curing undergone by the
\nagricultural produce “cardamom” under the careful supervision of expert curing
\nhouse in-charge was more  than  the  minimum  process  as  contemplated  under
\nSection  2(r)  of the TNGST Act and ultimately the Assessing Officer held that
\nthe exemption so contemplated under Section 2(r) was  not  applicable  to  the
\n“cardamom”  so  cured by the petitioner and levied the tax at the rate of five
\npercent.  That order was taken on appeal to  the  first  appellate  authority,
\nAdditional Appellate  Assistant  Commissioner in Appeal No.1111 of 1 991.  The
\nAppellate Authority also confirmed the finding of the Assessing  Officer  that
\nthe  process  of  curing with which the agricultural produce were subjected to
\nwas more than a process of mere cleaning, grading, sorting or  drying  and  as
\nsuch  by  virtue  of Explanation (1) to Section 2(r), the exemption claimed by
\nthe petitioner could not be granted treating the “cardamom”  as  sold  by  the
\npetitioner as  “mere agricultural produce”.  The petitioner not satisfied with
\nthat order preferred a further appeal to the  Sales  Tax  Appellate  tribunal,
\nCoimbatore  and  contended that in spite of the agricultural produce subjected
\nto the process of curing, it still remained to be the agricultural produce and
\nas such it is exempted from tax under Explanation (1) to Section 2(r) of TNGST
\nAct.  The last fact finding authority, the  Appellate  Tribunal  had  also  on
\nfacts  found  that  the  process  of curing ” cardamom” in a curing house in a
\nparticular degree of centigrade of heat was for the purpose of not  only  mere
\ndrying,  but  also for the purpose of making the product shining and retaining
\nmore aroma and flavour to fetch good price in the market.   Such  process  was
\nnot  a  mere  drying,  cleaning or sorting, but the curing is made in a curing
\nhouse under a careful supervision of an expert curing house  in-charge,  which
\nis  more than the minimum process of mere cleaning, grading, sorting or drying
\nand thereby confirmed the order of the  authorities  below.    The  petitioner
\nherein,  as if a question of law was involved in the decision so arrived at by
\nthe statutory authorities, carried the matter on revision to this Court  under
\nSection 38  of  the  TNGST  Act.  The revision was transferred to the Taxation
\nSpecial Tribunal after its constitution and the Special Tribunal after hearing
\nthe parties in an elaborate manner had come to the conclusion that  the  fresh
\nor  green  “cardamom” gathered from the plant or sorted out, cleaned and cured
\nin the curing house in a particular degree of centigrade  of  heat,  not  only
\nremoves  the  moisture,  but also gives shining to the “cardamom” and preserve
\nflavour and aroma.  Hence, the produce ceased to be  an  agricultural  produce
\nand  becomes  a commercial produce and ultimately confirmed the finding of the
\nstatutory authorities.  The said concurrent finding has been now put in  issue
\nin the present writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
        3.   Before  us,  the learned counsel Mr.K.J.chandran very strenuously
\nargued that the sales turnover of  “cardamom”  grown  in  the  estate  of  the
\npetitioner should not be included in the taxable turnover of the petitioner as
\nper Explanation  (1)  of  Section  2(r)  of  the  TNGST Act.  While drying the
\n“cardamom”, only the minimum process was done, that too, for  the  purpose  of
\nmarketing   it,  thereby  the  dried  “cardamom”  had  not  ceased  to  be  an
\nagricultural produce and hence the exemption as provided under explanation (1)
\nto Section 2(r) is very much available to the petitioner.  The finding of  the
\nauthorities  that after drying the “cardamom”, it ceased to be an agricultural
\nproduce is not in accordance with law.  To sustain his argument,  the  learned
\ncounsel relied on the following decisions:\n<\/p>\n
(1) COMMISSIONER  OF  SALES  TAX, LUCKNOW VS.  D.S.BIST AND OTHERS reported in
\n(1979) 44 STC 392
\n(2) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX VS.  A.P.RAMAN reported  in
\n(1960) XI STC 263 and
\n(3) RAYAVARAPU  MRITYANJAYA  RAO  VS.  THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reported in
\n(1967) XX STC 417.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  On the other hand, the  learned  Special  Government  Pleader  Mr.
\nAyyasamy  has  resisted  the  contention by contending that it is the admitted
\ncase of the petitioner themselves  that  the  agricultural  produce  from  the
\nestate of  the  petitioner  has  been subjected to the process of curing.  The
\nexplanation (1) to Section 2(r) is very clear that  the  agricultural  produce
\nshall not include such produce as has been subjected to any physical, chemical
\nor other  process  for being made fit for consumption.  Only activity exempted
\nby the provision is “mere cleaning,  grading  or  sorting  and  drying”.    He
\nfurther contended that the expression “mere” employed in the provision must be
\ngiven its   full  meaning.    The  expression  should  not  be  excluded  from
\nconsideration while considering whether the process of “curing” applied by the
\npetitioner for making the product marketable or fit for consumption would come
\nwithin the meaning of “mere cleaning, grading, sorting or drying”.  He further
\ncontended that  the  expression  employed  in  the  Explanation  is  cleaning,
\ngrading, sorting  or drying.  The expression “curing” has not been found place
\nin the explanation (1) to Section 2(r).   When  such  process,  which  is  not
\nenumerated,  has  been  applied to the goods so as to have the green and fresh
\n‘cardamom’ for not only getting it dried, but also getting  shining  and  also
\npreserving  with  its aroma and flavour, the process of “curing” cannot at all
\nbe said as a mere drying, which process alone is  saved  by  the  explanation.
\nFor  that  purpose,  he  relied  on  the  judgments  of  MANICKA  GOUNDER  VS.
\nARUNACHALA GOUNDER AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1965 MADRAS 1 and DINESH CHANDRA
\nSANGMA VS.  STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS reported in (1977) 4 SCC 441.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  We heard the arguments of the learned counsel on either  side  and
\nperused the materials on record.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   At  this  stage,  the  limit of jurisdiction of the High Court in
\nissuing a writ of certiorari or for that  matter,  a  writ  of  certiorarified
\nmandamus  under  Article  226 of the Constitution of India needs to be kept in
\nmind.  It has been held by the Constitution Bench of the  Apex  Court  in  the
\ncase of SYED YAKOOB VS.  K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND OTHERS reported in (1964) 5 SCR
\n64 as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “The  question  about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in
\nissuing a writ of certiorari under Article 226 has been frequently  considered
\nby  this  Court  and  the  true  legal position in that behalf is no longer in
\ndoubt.   A  writ  of  certiorari  can  be  issued  for  correcting  errors  of
\njurisdiction  committed by inferior courts or tribunals; these are cases where
\norders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or  in
\nexcess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdictions.  A writ can
\nsimilarly  be  issued  where  in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the
\ncourt or tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides  a
\nquestion  without  giving  an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by
\nthe order, or where the procedure adopted  in  dealing  with  the  dispute  is
\nopposed to  principles  of  natural justice.  There is, however, no doubt that
\nthe jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a  supervisory  jurisdiction
\nand  the  court  exercising  it  is not entitled to act as an appellate court.
\nThis limitation necessarily  means  that  findings  of  fact  reached  by  the
\ninferior  court or tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot
\nbe reopened or questioned in writ proceedings.   An  error  of  law  which  is
\napparent  on  the  face  of  the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an
\nerror of fact, however, grave it may appear to be.  In regard to a finding  of
\nfact  recorded  by  the  tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is
\nshown that in recording the said finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused
\nto admit  admissible  and  material  evidence,  or  had  erroneously  admitted
\ninadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding.  Similarly if
\na  finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error
\nof law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari.  In dealing  with  this
\ncategory of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact
\nrecorded  by  the  tribunal  cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of
\ncertiorari on the ground that  the  relevant  and  material  evidence  adduced
\nbefore  the  tribunal  was  insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned
\nfinding.  The adequacy or  insufficiency  of  evidence  led  on  a  point  and
\ninference  of  fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive
\njurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before  a
\nwrit court.   It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the
\nHigh  Courts  under  Article  226  to  issue  a  writ  of  certiorari  can  be
\nlegitimately exercised.”\n<\/p>\n
                                (bold supplied by us)\n<\/p>\n
        7.  So far as the present case is concerned, as seen from the order of
\nassessment  and  the  appellate  orders  of  the  first  and  second Appellate
\nauthorities  and  also  that  of  the  Special  Tribunal  in  its   revisional
\njurisdiction,  the  only objection that has been raised before the authorities
\nby the petitioner as stated by the Assessing Officer was as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “they had claimed exemption on sale of cardamom U\/s.2(r) of the  TNGST
\nAct, 1959 and added, that they had sold cardamom which were grown in their own
\nEstate  at  Valparai  and  being agricultural produce, the sales were exempted
\nfrom tax.”\n<\/p>\n
        That objection  has  been  considered  by  the  Assessing  Officer  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
        “In the case of United Nilgiris Tea Estates Company Ltd.  Vs Govt.  Of
\nTamilnadu  (1980) 45 STC 10 (Madras), it has been held, that the sale of Shade
\nTrees in  Tea  Estate  after  sizing  for  easy  transportation  was  sale  of
\nagricultural  produce  and  not  liable to sales tax U\/s.2(r) of the TNGST Act
\n1959.  This particular case mainly relied on by the dealers is not  applicable
\nto the instant case as the dealers have to cure with much care the Cardamom in
\nthe  curing  house  in  a  particular  degree  of Centigrade, or otherwise the
\nprocessed cardamom will not get good shining and flavour so as to fetch a good
\nprice in the market.  They not only dry, clean and  sort  out,  but  cure  the
\ngrown  cardamom  in  a curing house under the careful supervision of an expert
\ncuring house in charge.  Thus, the cardamom undergoes  processing  though  not
\nmanufacturing, and  then  only it would attain the stage of marketability.  As
\nsuch it ceased to be an agricultural produce.”\n<\/p>\n
        The said finding has been confirmed by the first and second  Appellate
\nAuthorities and  by  the  revisional authority, the Special Tribunal also.  No
\nevidence, much less, any  material  evidence  had  been  produced  before  the
\nstatutory  authorities  below  to  contend  that  the  processing of curing of
\n“cardamom” is just as that of merely drying the ” cardamom”.   Hence,  on  the
\nmaterials  made  available  by  the  petitioner,  the finding of fact has been
\narrived at by the authorities to the  effect  that  the  process  involved  in
\ncuring the  “cardamom” is more than mere drying.  The petitioner had not taken
\nany pain to produce before  the  authorities  or  made  available  before  the
\nauthorities  what are all the processes which the goods underwent while curing
\nthe same.  Hence, we are of the opinion that in the absence  of  any  material
\nmade  available before the authorities to prove that the process of curing and
\ndrying are one and the same, the factual finding arrived at by the authorities
\ncannot be disputed in the writ petition as ruled by the Constitution Bench  in
\nthe case of Syed Yakoob stated supra.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  Mr.Chandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner produced
\nbefore  us  a  write-up  across  the bar as to the process of curing, which is
\nextracted as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “We give below our explanation as regards cardamom  curing  operations
\nand show cardamom is only an agricultural produce for your consideration.\n<\/p>\n
        The  harvested  cardamom  capsules  are washed manually in clean water
\nwith washing soda to remove the mud (sand) and other soil particles.  Then the
\nwater is drained off and the capsules are spread evenly on wire net  trays  in
\nthe curing  room.    After spreading, the curing room is completely closed and
\nhot air is passed through pipes, thereby room temperature is increased only to
\nremove the moisture from cardamom.  This is maintained for about 3 to 4  hours
\nand as such no physical or chemical change takes place on account of the above
\noperation  and identity of the product (cardamom) is also retained without any
\nchange of whatsoever.\n<\/p>\n
        Then the room is opened for sudden cooling and  the  vapour  from  the
\ndrying fruits  is  thrown out.  The doors are closed after allowing the vapour
\nto escape completely and the temperature is maintained at a  reasonable  level
\nand kept  constant  for some hours.  By this time the curing will be completed
\nand the whole process of curing takes only about 6 hours.\n<\/p>\n
        The dried capsules (cardamom) are rubbed  with  hands  or  with  rough
\ngunnies to  remove  the hard ends and any other foreign matter.  Then, grading
\nand sorting are done by using different meshes to obtain required quality  and
\nsizes.  All the above work is carried out manually and no machinery is used at
\nany point.\n<\/p>\n
        It  is our submission that in any of the above works neither expertise
\nprocess is being undertaken to cure the cardamom nor  any  mechanical\/chemical
\noperation is  being  done.  The whole process is done only to make the product
\nmarketable and it does not lose the identity of an agricultural product at any
\nstage.”\n<\/p>\n
        9.  In order to appreciate the issue,  it  is  apropos  to  re-produce
\nExplanation (1) to Section 2(r) of the TNGST Act, which reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
        “Explanation  (1)-  “Agricultural  or horticultural produce” shall not
\ninclude such produce as has been subjected to any physical, chemical or  other
\nprocess  for  being  made  fit  for  consumption, save mere cleaning, grading,
\nsorting or drying.”\n<\/p>\n
        As per the Explanation, in order to get exemption under  Section  2(r)
\nof the TNGST Act for agricultural produce, such produce has not been subjected
\nto  any  physical,  chemical  or  other  process  for  being  made  it fit for
\nconsumption except mere cleaning, grading, sorting or drying.    Now  we  will
\nhave to find out whether curing process to which the goods are subjected to is
\nnothing but mere drying.\n<\/p>\n
        10.   As seen from the write up as to the process of “curing”, hot air
\nis passed through pipes thereby room temperature  was  maintained  at  certain
\ndegree of temperature.  The method of maintaining the temperature has not been
\nelaborated in  the  write  up.    It  is common knowledge that over heating or
\ngiving a temperature less than the required one would result in  spoiling  the
\nentire agricultural  produce.    Hence,  the  finding of fact by the Assessing
\nAuthori ty that the petitioner have cured the “cardamom” with much care  in  a
\nparticular  degree  of  centigrade  not only getting the “cardamom” dried, but
\nalso getting the ” cardamom” shining and keeping the aroma and  flavour  to  a
\ncertain standard.    In  that  activity,  the “cardamom” undergoes processing,
\nthough not manufacturing cannot be found faulty.  As per the write up given by
\nMr.Chandran, the fresh green “cardamom” are spread  evenly  on  the  wire  net
\ntrays  in  the curing room and thereafter hot air was passed though the pipes.
\nIn the “cardamom” curing room, there will be two  chambers-  upper  and  lower
\nchambers, separated by iron rods parallel to the floor fixed wall to wall at a
\nparticular height  and  width.    The  wire net trays would be spread over and
\nabove the iron grills and the harvested fresh green “cardamom” would be spread
\nthereon.  Slatted angles and racks would also be used for keeping the wire net
\ntrays.  These activities are done in the upper chamber.  Underneath  the  iron
\nrods  in the lower chamber, tin sheet or iron tubes with diameter varying from
\n3\/4 feet to 1 1\/2 feet would pass through wall to wall with an  outlet.    The
\nbeginning  of the iron pipe would be le t out near the chimney like portion of
\nthe curing wall with an  opening.    Hot  air  would  be  produced  by  firing
\nconstantly  like  locomotive  engine  by firing fire woods in the chimney like
\nopening from outside the wall of the curing room.  The hot air would  be  sent
\nthrough the  pipe.   The pipes radiate the heat absorbed by it by the hot air.
\nThe maintaining of temperature at particular degree of  centigrade  throughout
\nthe  period  of  curing,  which  last  long  for  nearly  ten to twelve hours,
\ndepending upon the quantity of the cardamom,  is  more  important.    In  that
\nprocess  only,  the fresh green fruits would be dried evenly and the colour of
\nthe capsule i.e., skin of the cardamom would get shining.  The heat  treatment
\ncould be  given  only  by  expert curing house keeper.  The whole process is a
\nprocess more than ordinary process of “mere drying”.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  In the 15th  Edition  of  Volume  II  of  the  New  Encyclopaedia
\nBritannica,  Micropaedia  Ready  Reference  and  Index, the word “cardamom” is
\ndefined as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “cardamom, spice consisting of whole or ground dried fruit, or  seeds,
\nof   Elettaria  cardamomum,  a  herbaceous  perennial  of  the  ginger  family
\n(Zingiberaceae).  The seeds have a characteristic warm, slightly pungent,  and
\nhighly aromatic  flavour  faintly  reminiscent of camphor.  They are a popular
\nseasoning in Near  and  Far  Eastern  dishes,  particularly  curries,  and  in
\nScandinavian pastries.\n<\/p>\n
        Native  to  the  moist  forests  of  southern  India, cardamoms may be
\ncollected from wild plants; but most are cultivated in India, Sri  Lanka,  and
\nGuatemala.   Leafy  shoots  arise  5  to  20 feet (1 1\/2 to 6 metres) from the
\nbranching rootstock.  Flowering shoots, about three feet (one metre) long, may
\nbe upright or sprawling; each bears numerous flowers about  two  inches  (five
\ncentimetres) in diameter with greenish petals and a purple-veined white lip.\n<\/p>\n
        The  whole  fruit,  0.3  to 0.6 inch (8 to 16 millimetres) is a green,
\nthree-sided  oval  capsule  containing  15  to  20  dark,   reddish-brown   to
\nbrownish-black, hard,  angular  seeds.    They  are picked or clipped from the
\nstems just before maturity, cleansed, and dried in the  sun  or  in  a  heated
\ncuring chamber.    Cardamom  may  be  bleached to a creamy white colour in the
\nfumes of burning sulfur.  After curing and drying,  the  small  stems  of  the
\ncapsules are  removed  by winnowing.  Decorticated cardamom consists of husked
\ndried seeds…..”\n<\/p>\n
        From the above, it is clear that cardamom is generally considered as a
\nground dried fruit.  In order to  make  it  consumable,  cardamom,  which  are
\npicked  or clipped from the stems just before maturity are cleansed, and dried
\nin the sun or in a heated curing chamber.   Cardamom  may  be  bleached  to  a
\ncreamy white  colour in the fumes of burning sulfur.  By the method of curing,
\nnot only cardamom is dried, but also as factually  found  by  the  authorities
\nbelow, it  also obtained shining in the curing process.  Hence, the finding as
\narrived at by the authorities cannot be found faulted that the curing is  much
\nmore process than the “mere” cleaning, grading, sorting or mere drying.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   The  meaning  of  the  word “mere” has been given in the Concise
\nOxford Dictionary of Tenth Edition, edited by Judy Pearsall as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “adj.  that is solely or no more or better than what is specified”
\n        The meaning of the word “merely” as an adverb in the  said  Dictionary
\nis given  as  “just,  only”.   The meaning of the word “merely” in Black’s Law
\nDictionary of Fifth Edition is given as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “without including anything  else;  purely;  only;  solely;  absolute;
\nwholly.”\n<\/p>\n
        In  P.Ramanatha  Aiyar’s  The  Law  Lexicon, Reprint Edition 1987, the
\nexpression “mere” has been given as “Only; only this;  nothing  else;  simple;
\nbare.”  The word “cure” in the above referred Oxford Dictionary has been meant
\nas “relieve of the symptoms  of  a  disease  or  condition,  by  treatment  or
\nremedial  action,  preserve  by  salting,  drying, or smoking, harden (rubber,
\nplastic, concrete, etc.,) after manufacture by  a  chemical  process  such  as
\nvulcanization,  a  substance,  treatment,  or  remedy  that  cures  a disease,
\ncondition or problem.” Hence, the process of curing is not  only  for  getting
\nthe  fresh green “cardamom” dried alone, but also preserving the cardamom with
\nflavour and aroma and also giving shining because of the heat treatment  given
\nto it by the process of curing.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  The  Supreme  Court  in  the case of M\/S.ASPINWALL & CO.  LTD VS.
\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ERNAKULAM reported in JT 2001 (7) SC  555  has
\nheld  that  the activity of the assessee therein of curing coffee, taking into
\nconsideration of the nine processes, is a manufacturing activity on the ground
\nthat in the curing process, there was conversion  of  raw  berry  into  coffee
\nbeans.  Taking the same analogy, in the case on hand, the process of curing of
\nthe fresh green cardamom into a marketable cardamom would definitely amount to
\na process more than a process of mere drying.\n<\/p>\n
        14.   Now,  let  us  consider  the  decisions  cited  on behalf of the
\npetitioner.  The first of the case referred by Mr.Chandran is COMMISSIONER  OF
\nSALES TAX,  LUCKNOW  VS.    D.S.BIST AND OTHERS reported in (1979) 44 STC 392.
\nThe question involved in that case was, whether  the  tealeaves  sold  by  the
\nassessee  were  agricultural  produce  grown  by  himself  and  the  sale were
\ntherefore not liable to tax under the proviso to Section 2(i) of the U.P.Sales
\nTax Act.  The question involved in the present case is totally  different,  in
\nthe  sense,  that  whether  the  process  of  curing to which the agricultural
\nproduce are subjected  to  would  take  away  the  exemption  granted  to  the
\nagricultural produce under Explanation (1) to Section 2(r).\n<\/p>\n
        15.   The  other  decision  relied  by  the  learned  counsel  for the
\npetitioner is DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX  VS.    A.P.RAMAN
\nreported in  (1960)  XI  STC  263.    The  question involved in that case was,
\nwhether  a  particular  process  alters  the  character  of  agricultural   or
\nhorticultural  produce  to  that  of manufactured article, wherein the general
\nprinciple which could be safely laid down  to  the  effect  that  the  minimum
\nprocess ordinarily employed by an agriculturist to make the produce marketable
\ncannot  be said that the produce ceased to be an agricultural or horticultural
\nproduce.  But in the present case, the Explanation (1) to Section 2(r) clearly
\nstates that agricultural or  horticultural  produce  shall  not  include  such
\nproduce  as  has been subjected to any physical, chemical or other process for
\nbeing made fit for consumption, but however mere  cleaning,  grading,  sorting
\nand drying have been saved.\n<\/p>\n
        16.   The  other  decision  cited  on  behalf  of  the  petitioner  is
\nRAYAVARAPU MRITYANJAYA RAO VS.  THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reported in (1967)
\nXX STC 417.  That was a case in which the question was whether the  trees  cut
\ninto  short pieces for purpose of transporting them to places where they could
\nbe sold ceased from exemption though the process of cutting trees into  pieces
\ndoes not make any difference so long as there is no alteration in its original
\nform or character.\n<\/p>\n
        17.   Hence, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are
\nof the considered view that the above said cases are  not  applicable  to  the
\nfacts  of the present case and thereby would not in anyway advance the case of
\nthe petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
        18.  The learned Government Pleader relied on the Full Bench  decision
\nof this  Court  in  the  case  of  MANICKA GOUNDER VS.  ARUNACHALA GOUNDER AND
\nOTHERS reported in AIR 1965 MADRAS 1 and DINESH CHANDRA SANGMA VS.   STATE  OF
\nASSAM  AND OTHERS reported in (1977) 4 SCC 441 to contend that the word “mere”
\ncannot at all be considered as surplusage and the due meaning of the word  has
\nto  be  given  while  construing  the word “mere cleaning, grading, sorting or
\ndrying” as employed in the Section.  There cannot be any second opinion  about
\nit.\n<\/p>\n
        19.   It  is  well  settled  that  no words or expressions used in any
\nstatute can  be  said  to  be  redundant  or  superfluous.    In  matters   of
\ninterpretation,  one  should  not concentrate too much on one word and pay too
\nlittle attention to other words.  No provision in the statute and no  word  in
\nany section  can  be  construed  in isolation.  Every provision and every word
\nmust be looked at generally and in the context in which it is  used.    It  is
\nsaid that  every  statute  is  an  edict  of  the Legislature.  The elementary
\nprinciple of interpreting any word while considering a statute  is  to  gather
\nthe mens or sententia legis of the Legislature.  Where the words are clear and
\nthere  is  no  obscurity,  and  there is no ambiguity and the intention of the
\nLegislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for the court to take  upon
\nitself the  task  of  amending or altering the statutory provisions.  Wherever
\nthe language is clear, the intention of the Legislature is to be gathered from
\nthe language used.  While doing so, what has been said in the statute as  also
\nwhat has  not  been said has to be noted.  The construction which requires for
\nits support, addition or substitution of words or which results  in  rejection
\nof words has to be avoided (vide JT 2002 (3) SC 55 1).\n<\/p>\n
        20.   The meaning of the word “drying” has to take its colour from the
\nother words with which it keeps  company.    The  process  of  mere  cleaning,
\ngrading and sorting doesn’t require any specialised or skilful process as that
\nof ‘curing’.\n<\/p>\n
        21.  In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that there is
\nabsolutely  no material so as to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact
\nthat the activity of “curing” of agricultural produce ”  cardamom”  cannot  be
\nconsidered as mere drying, but it could be considered as “not only drying, but
\nalso preserving  the  aroma  and  flavour  and  also giving shining”.  In such
\ncircumstances, the saving clause of mere cleaning, grading, sorting and drying
\nin explanation (i) to Section 2(r) of the TNGST Act  would  not  come  to  the
\nrescue  of  the  petitioner so as to conclude that the fresh green “cardamom”,
\nwhich  has  been  subjected  to  the  process  of  “curing”,  is  saved  under
\nExplanation (1) to Section 2(r) of the TNGST Act.\n<\/p>\n
        Hence, the  writ  petition  is  dismissed.  However, there shall be no
\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
Website:  Yes
\nIndex:  Yes
\nusk<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
1.  Registrar,
\nTamil Nadu Taxation Special
\nTribunal,
\nSingaravelan Maligai, Rajaji
\nSalai, Chennai-600 001.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Deputy Commissioner (CT)
\nCoimbatore, State of Tamil
\nNadu, Commercial Taxes
\nBuilding, Balasundaram Road,
\nCoimbatore-641 018.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court M\/S.Peria Karamalai Tea & Produce vs Tamil Nadu Taxation Special on 29 October, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29\/10\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN W.P.NO.14934 OF 2000 M\/s.Peria Karamalai Tea & Produce Co.Ltd., 234-A, Race Course Road, Coimbatore … Petitioner -Vs- […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-180429","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S.Peria Karamalai Tea & Produce vs Tamil Nadu Taxation Special on 29 October, 2002 - 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\/ms-peria-karamalai-tea-produce-vs-tamil-nadu-taxation-special-on-29-october-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.Peria Karamalai Tea & Produce vs Tamil Nadu Taxation Special on 29 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peria-karamalai-tea-produce-vs-tamil-nadu-taxation-special-on-29-october-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-04T05:23:09+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=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-peria-karamalai-tea-produce-vs-tamil-nadu-taxation-special-on-29-october-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-peria-karamalai-tea-produce-vs-tamil-nadu-taxation-special-on-29-october-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.Peria Karamalai Tea & Produce vs Tamil Nadu Taxation Special on 29 October, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-04T05:23:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-peria-karamalai-tea-produce-vs-tamil-nadu-taxation-special-on-29-october-2002\"},\"wordCount\":4627,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-peria-karamalai-tea-produce-vs-tamil-nadu-taxation-special-on-29-october-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-peria-karamalai-tea-produce-vs-tamil-nadu-taxation-special-on-29-october-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-peria-karamalai-tea-produce-vs-tamil-nadu-taxation-special-on-29-october-2002\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Peria Karamalai Tea & Produce vs Tamil Nadu Taxation Special on 29 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-04T05:23:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-peria-karamalai-tea-produce-vs-tamil-nadu-taxation-special-on-29-october-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-peria-karamalai-tea-produce-vs-tamil-nadu-taxation-special-on-29-october-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-peria-karamalai-tea-produce-vs-tamil-nadu-taxation-special-on-29-october-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Peria Karamalai Tea & Produce vs Tamil Nadu Taxation Special on 29 October, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S.Peria Karamalai Tea & Produce vs Tamil Nadu Taxation Special on 29 October, 2002 - 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\/ms-peria-karamalai-tea-produce-vs-tamil-nadu-taxation-special-on-29-october-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.Peria Karamalai Tea & Produce vs Tamil Nadu Taxation Special on 29 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peria-karamalai-tea-produce-vs-tamil-nadu-taxation-special-on-29-october-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-04T05:23:09+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":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peria-karamalai-tea-produce-vs-tamil-nadu-taxation-special-on-29-october-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peria-karamalai-tea-produce-vs-tamil-nadu-taxation-special-on-29-october-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.Peria Karamalai Tea & Produce vs Tamil Nadu Taxation Special on 29 October, 2002","datePublished":"2002-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-04T05:23:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peria-karamalai-tea-produce-vs-tamil-nadu-taxation-special-on-29-october-2002"},"wordCount":4627,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peria-karamalai-tea-produce-vs-tamil-nadu-taxation-special-on-29-october-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peria-karamalai-tea-produce-vs-tamil-nadu-taxation-special-on-29-october-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peria-karamalai-tea-produce-vs-tamil-nadu-taxation-special-on-29-october-2002","name":"M\/S.Peria Karamalai Tea & Produce vs Tamil Nadu Taxation Special on 29 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-04T05:23:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peria-karamalai-tea-produce-vs-tamil-nadu-taxation-special-on-29-october-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peria-karamalai-tea-produce-vs-tamil-nadu-taxation-special-on-29-october-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peria-karamalai-tea-produce-vs-tamil-nadu-taxation-special-on-29-october-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.Peria Karamalai Tea & Produce vs Tamil Nadu Taxation Special on 29 October, 2002"}]},{"@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\/180429","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=180429"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180429\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=180429"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=180429"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=180429"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}