{"id":181215,"date":"2002-12-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-12-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-tamil-nadu-chlorates-limited-vs-the-registrar-on-10-december-2002"},"modified":"2014-01-27T16:40:16","modified_gmt":"2014-01-27T11:10:16","slug":"tvl-tamil-nadu-chlorates-limited-vs-the-registrar-on-10-december-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-tamil-nadu-chlorates-limited-vs-the-registrar-on-10-december-2002","title":{"rendered":"Tvl. Tamil Nadu Chlorates Limited vs The Registrar on 10 December, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Tvl. Tamil Nadu Chlorates Limited vs The Registrar on 10 December, 2002<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 10\/12\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN\n\nW.P.NO.1364 OF 2001\n\nTvl.  Tamil Nadu Chlorates Limited\n17-A, Vallabhai Road\nMadurai - 2.                                    .....  Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.The Registrar,\n  Tamil Nadu Taxation Special\n  Tribunal, Singaravelar Maligai\n  Chennai\n\n2.The State of Tamil Nadu represented\n  by the Joint Commissioner (SMR),\n  Ezilagam, Chepauk,\n  Chennai-5.                                              .. Respondents\n\n        Prayer:  Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution  of\nIndia for the relief of writ of certiorarified mandamus as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner :  Mr.V.Sundareswaran\n\nFor Respondents:  Mr.T.Ayyaswami,\n                Spl.Govt.Pleader (Taxes)\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>        In  this  writ  petition, the order dated 4.12.2000 made in Tax case (<br \/>\nAppeal) No.2455 of 1997  by  the  Tamil  Nadu  Taxation  Special  Tribunal  is<br \/>\nchallenged.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  The petitioner is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General<br \/>\nSales Tax  Act,  (hereinafter  referred to as &#8220;the Act&#8221;.).  For the assessment<br \/>\nyear 1985-86, it reported a total and taxable  turnover  of  Rs.2,13,38,399\/-.<br \/>\nIt  is  the  case  of  the  petitioner that the petitioner purchased Potassium<br \/>\nChloride for an amount of Rs.69,991-25ps,  Rs.1,40  ,325\/-  and  Rs.6,34,900\/-<br \/>\nfrom  three  registered  dealers  and  used it in the manufacture of Potassium<br \/>\nChlorate.  Since the purchases were made from  registered  dealers  under  the<br \/>\nAct, the  petitioner  was  not  liable  to pay tax.  Originally, the Assessing<br \/>\nOfficer granted exemption as claimed on such purchases.  However, pursuant  to<br \/>\nthe  inspection  dated  10.9.1987, the original order was revised on the above<br \/>\nsaid turnover of purchases of Chloride made from (i) Industrial Chemicals (ii)<br \/>\nSelva agency and (iii) Mani Agency  on  the  ground  that  the  three  selling<br \/>\ndealers have not paid tax.  The petitioner carried the revised order on appeal<br \/>\nbefore  the  first  appellate authority and obtained an order of setting aside<br \/>\nthe assessment on those transactions.   However,  the  Joint  Commissioner  by<br \/>\ninvoking  his  suo  motu  revisional  power and after hearing the petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\nobjections, modified the order  of  revisional  assessment  by  fastening  the<br \/>\nliability on the petitioner in respect of the purchase turnover from the three<br \/>\nselling dealers   at  50:50  basis.    As  against  the  order  of  the  Joint<br \/>\nCommissioner, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Special Tribunal under<\/p>\n<p>Section 38 of the Act.  The Special Tribunal by its order, which  is  impugned<br \/>\nin the  writ petition, confirmed the order.  The correctness of the said order<br \/>\nis now put in issue in the present writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  The learned counsel Mr.Sundareswaran appearing for the  petitioner<br \/>\nhas  contended  that  the  purchases made by the petitioner were covered under<br \/>\nvalid bills issued by the selling dealers, who were registered under  the  Act<br \/>\nand hence the question of shifting levy of tax under Section 7-A of the Act is<br \/>\nunjustified.   He  further contended that by producing the purchase bills, the<br \/>\npetitioner had proved that there were earlier sales by the selling dealers  in<br \/>\nfavour of  the  petitioner.    Hence, it is for the revenue to collect the tax<br \/>\nfrom the dealers, who issued the bills.  It is also submitted by  the  learned<br \/>\ncounsel  that  the  entire  amount  has been paid by way of cheque and in such<br \/>\ncircumstances, it is for the Department to collect the tax  from  the  selling<br \/>\ndealers and mulcting the liability on the petitioner is not correct.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   On  the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submitted that<br \/>\nthe very point has been considered by the authorities as well as  the  Special<br \/>\nTribunal  in  the  revision  and appeal under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nGeneral Sales Tax Act.  The fact finding authorities ultimately found that the<br \/>\nselling dealers were not in existence and the  petitioner  has  produced  only<br \/>\nbills from  non-existing  dealers.  It was also found on fact that the selling<br \/>\ndealers neither carried on business nor handled the goods  and  the  addresses<br \/>\ngiven were  bogus.    When  the  petitioner  claims that it is entitled to the<br \/>\nbenefit of the second sale and if the initial  burden  is  discharged  by  the<br \/>\nDepartment, it is for the petitioner, who claims the benefit to prove that the<br \/>\ndealers  are  genuine dealers and the purchase turnover for which exemption is<br \/>\nclaimed have already suffered tax.  In the absence of any such  materials,  it<br \/>\nis futile to contend that the order impugned is not correct.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   We  heard the arguments of the learned counsel on either side and perused<br \/>\nthe materials on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   Mr.Sundareswaran,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  petitioner  has<br \/>\nvehemently  contended that when the purchasing dealers are registered dealers,<br \/>\nand the petitioner  has  produced  the  relevant  purchase  bills  before  the<br \/>\nauthorities,  it  is  for  the  revenue to collect the amount from the selling<br \/>\ndealers and it is not for the petitioner to prove  the  selling  dealers  were<br \/>\ngenuine  dealers  or  the  dealers  were  in  existence, particularly when the<br \/>\nselling dealers issued with registration certificates from the Department.  He<br \/>\nconcentrated much only on this issue and for that matter,  he  relied  on  the<br \/>\njudgment of  this  Court  in  LAKSHMI  STEEL  TRADERS  VS.    BOARD OF REVENUE<br \/>\n(COMMERCIAL TAXES) reported in (1991) 82 STC 409, wherein this Court has  held<br \/>\nthus:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;If a dealer establishes that a particular turnover represents second sales of<br \/>\ngoods  taxable  at  the point of first sale and the first sale was by a dealer<br \/>\nliable to pay tax, then the revenue cannot deny the exemption  on  the  second<br \/>\nsales  merely  on  the  ground  that the registration certificate of the first<br \/>\ndealer was cancelled during the assessment year  in  question  or  immediately<br \/>\nbefore the  purchase  by  the  dealer, namely the second seller.  However, the<br \/>\ndealer (second seller) must establish that the first sale was a taxable  sale;<br \/>\nwhether the tax had been paid by the first seller or not is not the concern of<br \/>\nthe dealer  (second seller).  The Revenue cannot take advantage of the fact of<br \/>\ncancellation of the registration certificate of the first seller either on his<br \/>\napplication or otherwise, without further investing as to  whether  the  bills<br \/>\nissued by  such  seller were real or bogus bills.  In the event of the Revenue<br \/>\nestablishing that the bills produced by the dealer (second seller)  are  bogus<br \/>\nand  were  not really issued by the first seller, then the dealer cannot claim<br \/>\nexemption on the alleged second sales.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>7.  We fail to conceive as to how this judgment is applicable to the facts  of<br \/>\nthe present  case.    In  fact,  in  our opinion, the said judgment instead of<br \/>\nadvancing the case of the petitioner, it demolishes the petitioner&#8217;s case.  As<br \/>\nruled by the Judgment, in the present case, the Assessing Officer,  the  Joint<br \/>\nCommissioner  as  well  as  the Special Tribunal recorded a very clear finding<br \/>\nthat the three selling dealers were non-existing  and  never  carried  on  any<br \/>\nbusiness.   The addresses, both business address and residential address given<br \/>\nin the Registration Certificates are bogus.  The summons sent to the addresses<br \/>\nwere returned with postal  endorsement  &#8220;No  such  addressee&#8221;.    On  physical<br \/>\nverification  also,  it  was found that the three dealers never carried on any<br \/>\nbusiness.  The cheques issued by the petitioner were realized by one Raja, who<br \/>\nis nothing to do with the three dealers.  By recording the above findings, the<br \/>\nrevenue established that the bills produced by the petitioner are bogus.   The<br \/>\ndecision of this Court in the case of GOVINDAN &amp; CO.  VS.  STATE OF TAMIL NADU<br \/>\n(1975)  35  STC 50, which has been subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court<br \/>\nin STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS.  RAMAN &amp; CO.  reported in (1994)  93  STC  1994  is<br \/>\nalso to  the  same  effect.    In  the  absence of any materials placed by the<br \/>\npetitioner to prove the contrary either before the authorities or even  before<br \/>\nthis Court, there is no scope for interference by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.   The  learned  counsel Mr.Sundareswaran has submitted that in the order of<br \/>\nthe Special Tribunal, there is a finding to the effect that the Raja Agency is<br \/>\nalso another bogus dealer and the said finding is unwarranted in the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case as it would adversely affect the petitioner in other<br \/>\ncases pending before the authorities.  The facts in issue in the present  case<br \/>\nrelated  only  to  the three agencies viz., Industrial Chemicals, Selva Agency<br \/>\nand Many Agency from whom the said purchases were said to have  been  made  by<br \/>\nthe petitioner.  In the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the<br \/>\nsaid finding is unnecessary.  Hence, the finding is vacated.\n<\/p>\n<p>        For  the  reasons  stated  above,  we  are  of  the view that there is<br \/>\nabsolutely no error apparent on the face of the record in  the  order  of  the<br \/>\nSpecial  Tribunal  so  as  to  interfere  with  the  same  in the present writ<br \/>\npetition.  Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.  However, there is no  order<br \/>\nas to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index :Yes<br \/>\nWebsite:  Yes<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.The Registrar<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Taxation Special<br \/>\nTribunal, Singaravelar Maligai<br \/>\nSecond Floor, Chennai\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Joint Commissioner (SMR),<br \/>\nState of Tamil Nadu,<br \/>\nEzilagam, Chepauk,<br \/>\nChennai-5.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Tvl. Tamil Nadu Chlorates Limited vs The Registrar on 10 December, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10\/12\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN W.P.NO.1364 OF 2001 Tvl. Tamil Nadu Chlorates Limited 17-A, Vallabhai Road Madurai &#8211; 2. &#8230;.. Petitioner -Vs- 1.The Registrar, [&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-181215","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Tvl. Tamil Nadu Chlorates Limited vs The Registrar on 10 December, 2002 - 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-tamil-nadu-chlorates-limited-vs-the-registrar-on-10-december-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tvl. Tamil Nadu Chlorates Limited vs The Registrar on 10 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-tamil-nadu-chlorates-limited-vs-the-registrar-on-10-december-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-01-27T11:10:16+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-tamil-nadu-chlorates-limited-vs-the-registrar-on-10-december-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-tamil-nadu-chlorates-limited-vs-the-registrar-on-10-december-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tvl. Tamil Nadu Chlorates Limited vs The Registrar on 10 December, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-27T11:10:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-tamil-nadu-chlorates-limited-vs-the-registrar-on-10-december-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1385,\"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-tamil-nadu-chlorates-limited-vs-the-registrar-on-10-december-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-tamil-nadu-chlorates-limited-vs-the-registrar-on-10-december-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-tamil-nadu-chlorates-limited-vs-the-registrar-on-10-december-2002\",\"name\":\"Tvl. Tamil Nadu Chlorates Limited vs The Registrar on 10 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-27T11:10:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-tamil-nadu-chlorates-limited-vs-the-registrar-on-10-december-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-tamil-nadu-chlorates-limited-vs-the-registrar-on-10-december-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-tamil-nadu-chlorates-limited-vs-the-registrar-on-10-december-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tvl. Tamil Nadu Chlorates Limited vs The Registrar on 10 December, 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":"Tvl. Tamil Nadu Chlorates Limited vs The Registrar on 10 December, 2002 - 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-tamil-nadu-chlorates-limited-vs-the-registrar-on-10-december-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tvl. Tamil Nadu Chlorates Limited vs The Registrar on 10 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-tamil-nadu-chlorates-limited-vs-the-registrar-on-10-december-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-01-27T11:10:16+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-tamil-nadu-chlorates-limited-vs-the-registrar-on-10-december-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-tamil-nadu-chlorates-limited-vs-the-registrar-on-10-december-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tvl. Tamil Nadu Chlorates Limited vs The Registrar on 10 December, 2002","datePublished":"2002-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-27T11:10:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-tamil-nadu-chlorates-limited-vs-the-registrar-on-10-december-2002"},"wordCount":1385,"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-tamil-nadu-chlorates-limited-vs-the-registrar-on-10-december-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-tamil-nadu-chlorates-limited-vs-the-registrar-on-10-december-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-tamil-nadu-chlorates-limited-vs-the-registrar-on-10-december-2002","name":"Tvl. Tamil Nadu Chlorates Limited vs The Registrar on 10 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-27T11:10:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-tamil-nadu-chlorates-limited-vs-the-registrar-on-10-december-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-tamil-nadu-chlorates-limited-vs-the-registrar-on-10-december-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-tamil-nadu-chlorates-limited-vs-the-registrar-on-10-december-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tvl. Tamil Nadu Chlorates Limited vs The Registrar on 10 December, 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\/181215","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=181215"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181215\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=181215"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=181215"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=181215"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}