{"id":180910,"date":"2004-10-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-10-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ascard-spinners-p-limited-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-20-october-2004"},"modified":"2018-09-11T05:12:03","modified_gmt":"2018-09-10T23:42:03","slug":"tvl-ascard-spinners-p-limited-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-20-october-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ascard-spinners-p-limited-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-20-october-2004","title":{"rendered":"Tvl.Ascard Spinners (P) Limited vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 20 October, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Tvl.Ascard Spinners (P) Limited vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 20 October, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 20\/10\/2004\n\nC O R A M\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.RAJAN\n\nW.P.No.11681 OF 1997\n\n\nTvl.Ascard Spinners (P) Limited,\nrep.by its Managing Director,\nManalur, Sivagangai District.                           .. Petitioner\n\n-vs-\n\nThe Commercial Tax Officer,\nSivagangi.                                             .. Respondent\n\n        PRAYER :  Petition filed under Article  226  of  the  Constitution  of\nIndia praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari as stated therein.\n\nFor petitioner ::  Mr.P.Radhakrishnan\n\nFor respondent ::  Mrs.Rani Selvam, GA (Taxes)\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>                The  prayer  in  the  writ  petition  is  to  issue  a Writ of<br \/>\nCertiorari, calling for the records on the  file  of  the  respondent  in  CST<br \/>\nNo.499319  \/94-95,  dated  31.12.1996  and  quash the same as illegal, without<br \/>\njurisdiction and without authority of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  The petitioner is a spinning mill manufacturing Cotton and<br \/>\nCotton Yarn.  For the assessment year 1994-95,  the  petitioner  reported  the<br \/>\ntotal  and  taxable turnover of Rs.1,80,000\/- under the Central Sales Tax Act.<br \/>\nThe petitioner during that year effected consignment  sales  to  the  tune  of<br \/>\nRs.8,30,000\/-,  but  it did not report the same in the monthly statement since<br \/>\nit is not liable to tax.    But,  the  second  respondent  assessed  the  said<br \/>\nconsignment sales  turnover  and levied tax on that.  The petitioner&#8217;s taxable<br \/>\nturnover for the year 1994-95 was determined at Rs.10,10,000\/- taxable  at  2%<br \/>\nas  against  the  reported  taxable  turnover  of Rs.1,80,000\/- by Order dated<br \/>\n30.10.1996.  In view of the assessment based on the &#8216;Best  Assessment&#8217;,  there<br \/>\nis a difference in tax to the tune of Rs.16,600\/- between the tax assessed and<br \/>\nthe tax  paid  by  the  petitioner.    For the said difference, the respondent<br \/>\nlevied penalty of Rs.24,900\/- under Section 12(3)(b)(v) of the TNGST Act  read<br \/>\nwith Sec.9(2-A)  of  the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.  Section 12(3)(b) of the<br \/>\nTNGST Act, 1959 was introduced vide Tamil Nadu Act 25 of 1993 with effect from<br \/>\n28.5.1993.  The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court challenging<br \/>\nthe provisions of Sec.9(2-A) of the Central Sales Tax  Act.    The  said  writ<br \/>\npetition was admitted and the interim stay of recovery of penalty was granted.<br \/>\nWhile  so,  the  respondent  has passed the revised order of assessment, dated<br \/>\n31.12.1 996, by which the respondent assessed consignment sale of  Rs.8,30,000<br \/>\n\/-  at  4% on the ground that in the original order it was wrongly assessed at<br \/>\n2%.  Thus, in the revised  order  of  assessment,  the  respondent  levied  an<br \/>\nadditional tax of Rs.33,200\/-, as also the penalty of Rs.4 9,800\/-.  According<br \/>\nto the  petitioner,  the  consignment sale is not liable to tax.  Even against<br \/>\nthe original assessment order, dated 30.10 .1996, the petitioner has preferred<br \/>\nan appeal and the same is still pending.  Without waiting for  the  result  in<br \/>\nthe  appeal, the respondent has revised the Order of assessment and levied tax<br \/>\nat 4%, which is illegal.\n<\/p>\n<p>                Further, the penalty under Section 12(3) can  be  levied  only<br \/>\nfor an   assessment  made  under  Section  12(2),  i.e.    original  order  of<br \/>\nassessment.  The revised order passed by the respondent is an assessment under<br \/>\nSection 16 of the TNGST act, for which the penalty can be levied under Section<br \/>\n16(2) of the TNGST Act and not under Section 12(3) of the TNGST  Act.    Under<br \/>\nsuch circumstances,  the  penalty cannot be levied.  Hence, the respondent has<br \/>\nno jurisdiction or authority to levy penalty for the revised assessment order.<br \/>\nHence, the revised order of assessment is illegal as also  the  penalty.    An<br \/>\nappeal against that order ought to have been filed on or before 6.2.1997.  But<br \/>\nthe  petitioner was on a mistaken impression that since the appeal has already<br \/>\nbeen filed against the original order of assessment and the same  is  pending,<br \/>\nit was  not  necessary  to  file  an  appeal  against  the impugned order.  On<br \/>\n9.7.1997, the respondent sent his agent for collecting the tax and penalty due<br \/>\nunder the impugned order, the petitioner contacted his Advocate for  necessary<br \/>\naction.   There  is  no power for the Appellate Authority to condone the delay<br \/>\nbeyond 30 days.  Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  No counter has been filed in this matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted  that  it<br \/>\nis not  the  case  of assessment on escaped turn over.  The turn over has been<br \/>\nintimated to the authorities, but it was claimed as consignment sale and hence<br \/>\nexempted from tax.  Theref ovisions of the Act for assessment  based  on  best<br \/>\njudgment cannot be invoked in this case.  Only, under such circumstances, when<br \/>\nthe  return  was  not  submitted  or when tax is imposed on the basis of best<br \/>\njudgment, penalty can be levied under the provisions of Sec.12(3)(b)  of  the<br \/>\nTNGST Act.    At  the  most,  in the present case, since the turnover has been<br \/>\nshown in the return, only a tax can be levied  on  the  turn  over  disclosed.<br \/>\nUnder those  circumstances,  penalty  cannot  be  levied.  Since imposition of<br \/>\npenalty is not in accordance with law, the impugned order is liable to be  set<br \/>\naside.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.   Further, amendment to Sec.12(3)(b) of the TNGST Act, 1959<br \/>\ncame into force only on  01.07.2002.    Therefore  that  provision  cannot  be<br \/>\ninvoked  for  imposing  penalty on an assessment for the period prior to that.<br \/>\nHence, the impugned order imposing penalty is not legal and the writ  petition<br \/>\nis to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.   Heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the respondent on this<br \/>\naspect.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  From the facts  referred  to  in  the  affidavit  and  the<br \/>\narguments  thereon,  the  impugned  order  has to be challenged only by way of<br \/>\nappeal.  But, the petitioner did not file an appeal.  In fact  he  has  stated<br \/>\nthe  reasons  or  the  circumstances  for non-filing of the appeal against the<br \/>\nrevised order of assessment.  Since the authorities have no power  to  condone<br \/>\nthe  delay  in filing the appeal, the present writ petition has been filed, as<br \/>\nthere is no other remedy.    The  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  also<br \/>\nsubmitted  that the revised order of assessment itself is an illegal order not<br \/>\nsupported by any valid law, hence there is no prohibition for filing the  writ<br \/>\npetition challenging  the  same.    This  argument  of  the  counsel  for  the<br \/>\npetitioner is acceptable.  For the reasons that the validity of the  order  is<br \/>\nchallenged,  and  also  that  there  is  no  other  remedy available, the writ<br \/>\npetition is maintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.  In  this  case,  the  petitioner  has  not  concealed  any<br \/>\nturn-over.   He has only claimed that for certain turn over he is entitled for<br \/>\nexemption from levy of tax.  Therefore, when that is rejected, it  is  only  a<br \/>\ntax levied on the turn over disclosed.  It is not tantamount to tax on escaped<br \/>\nassessment.  Therefore,  it  cannot  be considered as &#8216; best judgment&#8217;.  It is<br \/>\nnot a case of mere filing no returns or incomplete or incorrect return.  Under<br \/>\nSection 12(2) of the TNGST Act, &#8220;If no return is submitted by the dealer under<br \/>\nsub-section (1) within the prescribed period, or if the  return  submitted  by<br \/>\nhim  appears  to  the  assessing  authority to be incomplete or incorrect, the<br \/>\nassessing authority shall, after  making  such  enquiry  as  it  may  consider<br \/>\nnecessary, assess  the  dealer  to  the  best  of its judgment&#8221;.  When such an<br \/>\nassessment is made under sub-Section (2), the Assessing  Authority  shall,  in<br \/>\naddition  to  the  tax  assessed, direct the dealer to pay penalty in the same<br \/>\norder of assessment as per the Act.  This provision was amended  on  1.7.2002,<br \/>\nwhere  penalty  could be levied even when the assessment order is passed under<br \/>\nsub-Section (1) to Section 12.  Under Section 12 (1),  regular  assessment  is<br \/>\nmade on  the basis of the return filed.  After, 2002, even when the assessment<br \/>\nis made on the basis of the return filed under Section 12(1) or on  the  basis<br \/>\nof  &#8216;Best  Assessment&#8217;  under Section 12(2), penalty is leviable under Section<br \/>\n12(3).  This amended provision can be invoked only for  any  return  submitted<br \/>\nafter 1.7.2002.  In case of return filed prior to 1.7.2002, the penalty can be<br \/>\nimposed only  if  assessment  is  made under Section 12(2).  No penalty can be<br \/>\nmade when assessment is made under sub-Section (1) of Section  12.    In  this<br \/>\ncase,  admittedly,  the  assessment  is  made on the return submitted prior to<br \/>\n1.7.2002.  Therefore, when the exemption is claimed bona  fide  and  that  was<br \/>\nrejected, it  is  an assessment made under sub-Section (1).  Therefore, on the<br \/>\ndate when the return has been  filed,  the  penalty  cannot  be  levied  under<br \/>\nSection 12(3).    In this case, penalty has been levied even for assessment of<br \/>\nthe tax on the basis of return filed, which  is  not  a  assessment  by  &#8216;Best<br \/>\njudgment&#8217; under  Section  12(2).   Therefore, the imposition of penalty is not<br \/>\nlegal.  Hence, the impugned order imposing penalty alone is set  aside.    The<br \/>\nwrit petition is allowed as prayed for.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  Yes<br \/>\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n<p>pb<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Commercial Tax Officer,<br \/>\nSivagangai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Tvl.Ascard Spinners (P) Limited vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 20 October, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20\/10\/2004 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.RAJAN W.P.No.11681 OF 1997 Tvl.Ascard Spinners (P) Limited, rep.by its Managing Director, Manalur, Sivagangai District. .. Petitioner -vs- The Commercial Tax [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-180910","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Tvl.Ascard Spinners (P) Limited vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 20 October, 2004 - 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\/tvl-ascard-spinners-p-limited-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-20-october-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tvl.Ascard Spinners (P) Limited vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 20 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ascard-spinners-p-limited-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-20-october-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-10T23:42:03+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ascard-spinners-p-limited-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-20-october-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ascard-spinners-p-limited-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-20-october-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tvl.Ascard Spinners (P) Limited vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 20 October, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-10T23:42:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ascard-spinners-p-limited-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-20-october-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1357,\"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\/tvl-ascard-spinners-p-limited-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-20-october-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ascard-spinners-p-limited-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-20-october-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ascard-spinners-p-limited-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-20-october-2004\",\"name\":\"Tvl.Ascard Spinners (P) Limited vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 20 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-10T23:42:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ascard-spinners-p-limited-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-20-october-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ascard-spinners-p-limited-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-20-october-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ascard-spinners-p-limited-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-20-october-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tvl.Ascard Spinners (P) Limited vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 20 October, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Tvl.Ascard Spinners (P) Limited vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 20 October, 2004 - 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\/tvl-ascard-spinners-p-limited-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-20-october-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tvl.Ascard Spinners (P) Limited vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 20 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ascard-spinners-p-limited-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-20-october-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-10T23:42:03+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ascard-spinners-p-limited-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-20-october-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ascard-spinners-p-limited-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-20-october-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tvl.Ascard Spinners (P) Limited vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 20 October, 2004","datePublished":"2004-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-10T23:42:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ascard-spinners-p-limited-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-20-october-2004"},"wordCount":1357,"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\/tvl-ascard-spinners-p-limited-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-20-october-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ascard-spinners-p-limited-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-20-october-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ascard-spinners-p-limited-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-20-october-2004","name":"Tvl.Ascard Spinners (P) Limited vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 20 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-10T23:42:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ascard-spinners-p-limited-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-20-october-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ascard-spinners-p-limited-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-20-october-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ascard-spinners-p-limited-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-20-october-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tvl.Ascard Spinners (P) Limited vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 20 October, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180910","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=180910"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180910\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=180910"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=180910"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=180910"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}