{"id":18228,"date":"2008-07-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vishnuram-on-4-july-2008"},"modified":"2018-01-01T06:18:58","modified_gmt":"2018-01-01T00:48:58","slug":"commissioner-vs-vishnuram-on-4-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vishnuram-on-4-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs Vishnuram on 4 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Commissioner vs Vishnuram on 4 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: Jayant Patel Kureshi, Akil Kureshi<\/div>\n
  \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n \n \n\n\n\t \n\nITR\/59\/1999\t 15\/ 15\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nINCOME\nTAX REFERENCE No. 59 of 1999\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER\nOF INCOME TAX - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nVISHNURAM\nJIVRAM & CO. - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nMANISH R BHATT for\nApplicant(s) : 1, \nMR BHARGAV KARIA FOR MR RK PATEL for\nRespondent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 04\/07\/2008 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)<\/p>\n
\tFor
\nthe assessment year 1989-90, at the instance of the Revenue,
\nfollowing question of law has been referred for our consideration:\n<\/p>\n
\u00fdSWhether
\non the facts and in the circumstances of the case and  in law, the
\nHonourable Tribunal was justified in law in holding that fine of
\nRs.97,000\/- for contravention of provisions of customs Act was
\ndeductible u\/s 27 of the Act ?\u00fd\u00fd<\/p>\n
2.\tShort
\nfacts leading to the present  reference need to be noted at this
\nstage.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tAssessee
\nwas a firm engaged in the business of wire drawing.  During the year
\nunder consideration, the assessee claimed an amount of Rs.97,000\/- by
\nway of business expenditure. Foundation  for the said claim was that
\nsilver weighing 29.050 k.g. and another consignment weighing  7.370
\nk.g. of the assessee was confiscated by the Additional Collector of
\nCustoms.  In appeal before the Customs and Gold Control Appellate
\nTribunal (CEGAT for short), such confiscation was upheld. But the
\nassessee was given a option to pay fine of Rs.97,000\/- in order to
\nredeem the confiscated goods.\n<\/p>\n
2.2\t\tThe
\nassessee paid the said amount and claimed it as a deductible
\nexpenditure under section 37 of the  Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’
\nfor short).\n<\/p>\n
2.3\t\tThe
\nAssessing Officer disallowed the claim  holding that the assessee
\nbeing an experienced business person should have carried  all the
\ndocuments with the silver he was carrying. The expenditure therefore
\ncould not be termed as one incidental to carrying the assessee’s
\nnormal business. It was further held that the expenditure was
\nincurred for  payment of penalty for breach of law.  The Assessing
\nOfficer, therefore, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the
\ncase of  Haji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros.   v. C.I.T.,<\/a>
\nreported in 41 ITR 350 disallowed the claim of the assessee.  C.I.T.
\nAppeals confirmed the decision of the Assessing Officer.  In further
\nappeal before the Tax Appellate Tribunal, the assessee succeeded. The
\nTribunal allowed deduction  of the said expenditure as  business
\nexpenditure holding that though the amount paid was termed as
\npenalty, the same was paid by the assessee in exercise of the option
\nconferred upon by him by law and that therefore the same should be
\ntermed as business expenditure deductible under section 37 of the
\nAct.  The Tribunal was  also of the opinion that the amount paid by
\nthe assessee was compensatory in character.\n<\/p>\n
2.4\tReference
\nhas been made before us, therefore, at the instance of the revenue.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tFacts
\nare not really in dispute as already noted.  Certain consignments of
\nsilver belonging to the assessee  were found to be contravening  the
\nprovisions  of the Customs  Act and in particular section 11-K, 11-L,
\n11-J thereof.  For such breach, proceedings were carried out by the
\nCustoms officials. Additional Collector, Customs holding that the
\nassessee had breached the provisions of the Customs Act ordered
\nconfiscation of the goods. CEGAT, however, while confirming the
\nconfiscation   offered redemption to the assessee upon payment of
\nfine of Rs.97,000\/-. Such option was exercised by the assessee.  The
\nquestion, therefore, calls for our consideration is whether such
\nexpenditure could be  termed as one  incurred for the purpose of
\nbusiness so as to be permitted deduction thereof under section   37
\nof the Act.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tLearned
\ncounsel Shri M.R.Bhatt appearing for the Revenue  submitted that the
\nassessee had indulged in illegal activity and had breached the
\nprovisions of the Customs Act. Any penalty that the assessee
\ntherefore  paid for such breach cannot be given set off against his
\nincome. It was contended that essentially the Customs Authorities had
\nordered confiscation of the goods and it was only by way of an option
\nthat the assessee could redeem such confiscation by payment of fine.
\nHe, therefore, contended that the fine paid by the assessee was
\npurely  penal in nature and not compensatory. Relying on various
\ndecisions of the Apex Court as well as of the High Courts and in
\nparticular in the case of Haji Aziz (supra), he contended that the
\nTribunal erred in permitting deduction  of such expenditure incurred
\nby the assessee.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tPlacing
\nheavy reliance on the decision of  Haji Aziz (supra), it was
\ncontended that the Tribunal committed grave error in allowing the
\ndeduction.  In the case of Haji Aziz (supra), the assessee who was
\ncarrying on the business of importing dates  from   abroad and
\nselling in India had imported certain  quantity of dates from Iraq by
\nsteamer  and country craft. At the time when the import was made,
\nimport of dates by steamer was prohibited. Dates which were imported
\nby steamer were confiscated by the Customs Authorities, but the
\nassessee was given an option to pay fine and upon his paying the
\nfine, the dates were released.  In computing its profit, the assessee
\n sought to  deduct the amount paid as fine as an allowable
\nexpenditure under the Income Tax Act.  Apex Court, however, turned
\ndown the claim holding that  no expenditure which was paid by way of
\npenalty for breach of law even though it might  involve no personal
\nliability could be said to be an amount wholly  and exclusively paid
\nfor the purpose of business of the assessee within the meaning of
\nsection 10(2)(xv) of the Act and the fine paid by the assessee was
\nnot an allowable deduction under the said section.  It was observed
\nthat the expenses which are permitted are deductions which are made
\nfor the purpose of carrying on business, that is to say, to enable a
\nperson to carry on and earn profit  in that business.  It is not
\nenough that the disbursements are made in the course of  or arise out
\nof or concerned with or made out of the profits of the business, but
\nthey must also be  for the purpose of earning the  profits of the
\nbusiness. They cannot be deducted if they fall on the assessee in
\nsome character other than that of a trader.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tReliance
\nwas placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of  Maddi
\nVenkataraman & Co. (P) Ltd. v. C.I.T reported in  229 ITR\n<\/p>\n
534.   In the said decision, the Apex Court relying on the earlier
\ndecision of Haji Aziz (supra), disallowed the claim of the assessee
\nfor deduction of the expenses incurred in the transaction carried out
\nin violation of the provisions of FERA.  The assessee company was
\ncarrying on the business of  exporting tobacco. In the year 1968, it
\nhad accumulated certain quantity of sub-standard tobacco which it
\ncould not export for  three years.  Since the tobacco was of
\nsubstandard quality, the same could not be sold at the floor price
\nfixed by the Government of India.  According to the assessee, it had
\nno alternative but to sell the tobacco at a discount of 20% to a
\nSingapore party.  On paper, therefore, the assessee received full
\nsale price from the Singapore party, but in reality, 20% thereof was
\nremitted back to the Singapore party.  A sum of Rs.2,88,000\/- so
\nremitted  was claimed as business expenditure. The assessee claimed
\ndeduction from its earning.  The Supreme Court disallowing the claim
\nheld that the assessee had indulged in transactions in violation of
\nthe provisions of FERA.  The assessee was engaged in tobacco business
\nand was expected to carry on the business  in accordance with law.
\nIf the assessee contravened the provisions of FERA to  cut down its
\nlosses or to make larger profits, it was only to be expected  that
\nproceedings would be  taken against  for violation of that Act. The
\nexpenditure incurred for evading the provisions of the Act and also
\npenalty levied for such evasion cannot be allowed as deduction.  It
\nwas observed that it would be against the public policy to allow the
\nbenefit of deduction under one statute  of any expenditure incurred
\nin violation of the provisions of another statute or any penalty
\nimposed under another statute.  It was further observed that if such
\ndeductions are allowed, penal provisions of FERA could become
\nmeaningless.  It has to be borne in mind that evasion of law cannot
\nbe a trade pursuit.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tReliance
\nwas also placed on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in
\nthe case of  C.I.T.  v. Jamiyatrai Rajpal,  reported in 232 ITR
\n437 wherein the assessee  had imported palm kernel seeds. The
\nconsignment was not covered under the open general license.  Customs
\nAuthorities, therefore, confiscated  the consignment under the
\nCustoms Act.  The assessee got the goods released after paying  Rs.27
\nlacs as fine and claimed the said amount as business expenditure.
\nThe High Court relying on the decision of Haji Aziz (supra) turned
\ndown the claim  holding that amount of Rs.27 lacs represented fine
\nfor violation of Customs Act and was therefore not an allowable
\ndeduction.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tReliance
\nwas placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the
\ncase of  Orient Trading Co.  v.  C.I.T., reported in 202 ITR\n<\/p>\n
481.  In the said case, the assessee was required to pay penalty of
\nRs.28,843\/- under the Gujarat  Sales Tax Act as it had not paid the
\ntax within the stipulated time. The assessee claimed the said payment
\nas interest and claimed deduction thereof under section 37 of the
\nIncome Tax Act. The High Court negatived the claim holding that the
\npayment was by way of penalty and the same was not compensatory in
\nnature.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tOn
\nthe other hand, learned advocate Shri Bhargav Karia appearing for the
\nassessee submitted that the assessee had paid fine in lieu of
\nconfiscation and the payment was, therefore, compensatory in nature.
\nRelying on the provisions of section 125 of the Customs Act, he
\nstrenuously urged  that the fine paid by the assessee was not penal,
\nbut compensatory in nature.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tReliance
\nwas placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case  of
\n Dr.T.A.Quereshi  v. C.I.T., reported 287 ITR 547.  In the said
\ncase, the assessee was found indulging in illegal activity of selling
\nheroin. A consignment of heroin belonging to the assessee was seized.
\n The assessee claimed deduction of value of such consignment as loss
\nof stock in trade. His claim was allowed by the Apex Court  observing
\nthat though the assessee had committed a highly immoral act in
\nillegally manufacturing and selling heroin, the case ought to be
\ndecided on legal principles and not on moral values.  In the said
\ndecision, one may however  notice that reliance was placed in the
\ncase of  CIT  v. Piara Singh,  reported in 124 ITR 40 wherein
\nthe Apex Court allowed by way of business loss to the assessee the
\namount of currency confiscated  by the authorities as the assessee
\nwas carrying on smuggling activity.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tReliance
\nwas placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of C.I.T. v.
\nAhmedabad Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd.,<\/a> 2005 ITR 163, wherein the assessee, a
\ntextile company, instead of producing and packing minimum quantity
\nof specified type of clothes as required under the Government order,
\npaid certain sum of money to the Textile Commissioner by exercising
\noption  available to it  and claimed such expenditure as the business
\nexpenditure.  The Apex Court allowed the claim holding that the
\namount paid by the assessee was  in the nature of penalty, but was an
\nexercise of option given to it  by the law or the statutory scheme
\nand the expenditure was   thus in course of business as a measure of
\nbusiness expediency and the amounts were therefore allowable as
\nbusiness expenditure under section 37 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tReliance
\nwas also placed on a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of
\n C.I.T. v. N.M.Parthasarthy,  212 ITR 105 in which a Division
\nBench of the Madras High Court  was pleased to hold that fine paid by
\nthe assessee in lieu of confiscation of goods under the Customs Act
\nshould be allowed  to be deducted from the income of the assessee.
\nThe Bench was of the opinion that such fine cannot be stated to be
\npenal in nature notwithstanding its nomenclature.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tFrom
\nthe material on record, it can thus be seen that certain consignments
\nof silver belonging to the assessee was seized. It was  found that
\nthe assessee had contravened the provisions contained in section 11K,
\nL and J of the Customs Act.  Quantity of silver was, therefore,
\nliable for confiscation under section 113 of the Customs Act.  In
\nexercise of the powers under section 125 of the Customs Act, however,
\nCEGAT offered the option to the assessee to pay fine in lieu of
\nconfiscation.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tSection
\n113 of the Customs Act makes certain goods liable to confiscation.
\nClause (l) thereof  in particular provides that  any specified goods
\nin relation to which any provisions of Chapter IV-B or any rule under
\nthe Act for carrying out the purposes of that Chapter have been
\ncontravened shall be liable to confiscation.  Chapter IV-B which
\ncontains besides others, section 11K, L and J, pertains to prevention
\nor detection  of illegal exports of goods.  These provisions are made
\nin Chapter IV-B for proper maintenance of record, movement of goods,
\netc. for prevention or detection of illegal exports of goods and
\ncontravention of any of the provisions  may result into confiscation
\nof the goods.  Section 125 of the Customs Act, however permits  the
\nAuthority under certain circumstances to give an option to the owner
\nor the person in possession  of such goods to pay fine in lieu of
\nconfiscation.  Section 125 of the Customs Act reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\u00fdS125.\n<\/p>\n
 Option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation.  (1) Whenever
\nconfiscation  of any goods is authorised  by this Act, the officer
\nadjudging it may, in the case of any goods, the importation or
\nexportation whereof is prohibited under this Act or under any other
\nlaw for the time being in force, and shall, in the case of any other
\ngoods, give to the owner of the goods or, where such owner is not
\nknown, the person from whose possession or custody such goods have
\nbeen seized, an option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine as
\nthe said officer thinks fit:\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided
\nthat, without prejudice to the provisions  of the proviso to
\nsub-section (2) of section 115, such fine shall not exceed  the
\nmarket price of the goods  confiscated, less in the case of imported
\ngoods the duty chargeable thereon.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tWhere
\nany fine in lieu of confiscation of goods is imposed under
\nsub-section (1) the owner  of such goods or the person referred to in
\nsub-section (1) shall, in addition, be liable to any duty and charges
\n payable in respect of such goods.\u00fd\u00fd<\/p>\n
Under
\nsub-section (1) of section 125 of the Customs Act, thus when the
\ngoods being confiscated  of which the importation or exportation is
\nprohibited under the Act, it is discretionary on the competent
\nauthority to offer redemption. In other cases, however, option to pay
\nfine in lieu of confiscation is to be granted.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tCombined
\nreading of the above noted provisions would reveal that fine  that
\nthe owner or the person in possession of the goods pays to the
\nCustoms Authorities is  to avoid confiscation. Confiscation is to be
\nordered since it is found that the owner has breached certain
\nprovisions of the Act.  To our mind, therefore, nature of fine is
\npenal and cannot be termed as compensatory.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tFacts
\nin the case on hand are very similar to those involved in the case of
\nHaji Aziz (supra) decided by the Apex Court.  As already noted, it
\nwas a case wherein the assessee had imported consignment of dates
\nthrough shipment which was prohibited for which goods were liable to
\nbe confiscated.  The assessee was, however, given an option to pay
\nfine in lieu of confiscation  which the assessee agreed to pay.  Fine
\nso paid was not  allowed as business expenditure  by the Apex Court.
\nThe ratio laid down therein, in our view, would squarely apply in the
\npresent case also.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\nApex Court in the said decision  observed that no expenditure which
\nwas paid by way of penalty for breach of law could be said to be an
\namount wholly and exclusively laid  for the purpose of the business
\nof the assessee.\n<\/p>\n
\tA
\nDivision Bench of this Court, as noted above, in the case of Orient
\nTrading Co. (supra) had disallowed the interest paid by the assessee
\nfor delayed payment of sales tax dues terming such interest as penal
\ninterest and not compensatory in nature.\n<\/p>\n
\tMadhya
\nPradesh High Court in the case of CIT  v.  Jamiyatrai Rajpal (supra),
\nrelying on the case of Haji Aziz had turned down the claim of the
\nassessee for deduction of expenditure towards payment of fine for
\nviolation of Customs Act.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tThe
\ncase of Dr.T.A.Quereshi (supra) decided by the Apex Court, reliance
\non which was placed by the assessee, is based on vitally different
\nfactual background.  It was a case wherein the assessee was involved
\nin illegal business of trading in heroin.  The assessee claimed
\ndeduction of the value of heroin seized from his gross income
\nclaiming it to be loss of stock  in trade.  Relying on the principles
\nlaid down in the case of CIT  v. Piara Singh (supra), the Apex Court
\nallowed his claim.  Here, however, there is discernible line of
\ndistinction. In the case of Piara Singh and in the case of
\nDr.T.A.Quereshi wherein assessee’s income from wholly illegal
\nactivities were sought to be taxed,  in that context, it was found
\nthat the loss of stock in trade should be granted deduction from the
\nincome of the assessee.  In case   of Haji Aziz (supra), however, the
\nassessee  was involved in legal business who claimed deduction for
\nexpenditure incurred for payment of penalty. This distinction has
\nbeen brought out by the Apex Court in the case of  Maddi Venkataraman
\n & Co. (P) Ltd. (supra) while observing that if a sum  has to be
\npaid by an assessee  because in conducting his business he had acted
\nin a manner which had rendered him liable for penalty for infraction
\nof law, it could not be claimed as a deduction  and that infraction
\nof law is not a normal incident of business.  The Apex Court observed
\nthat one exception to this rule recognized by the courts is  where
\nthe entire business of the assessee is illegal and that income is
\nsought to be taxed by the  Income Tax Officer, then the expenditure
\nincurred in the illegal activities will also have to be allowed as
\ndeduction. But if the business is otherwise lawful and the assessee
\nresorts to unlawful means to augment his profits or reduce his loss,
\nthen the expenditure incurred for these unlawful activities cannot be
\nallowed to be deducted.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tIn
\nview of the above decisions of the Apex Court and in view our our
\nopinion that the expenditure  incurred by the assessee for payment of
\nfine  in lieu of confiscation was penal in nature, we are unable to
\nuphold the view of the Tax Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
19.\tIt
\nis true that a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of
\n C.I.T.  v. N.M.Parthasarthy (supra) has taken a different view under
\nvery similar factual background.  However, we are unable to persuade
\nourselves to  adopt the said view in view of the decisions of the
\nApex Court in the case of Haji Aziz (supra) and in the case of Maddi
\nVenkataraman & Co. (P) Ltd.(supra).  As noted, Madhya Pradesh
\nHigh Court has also  in the case of C.I.T. v.  Jamiyatrai Rajpal
\n(supra) taken a similar view.\n<\/p>\n
20.\tTo
\nour mind, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Haji
\nAziz (supra) has not been diluted or deviated  by the subsequent
\ndecisions and in fact it is reiterated in the case of Maddi
\nVenkataraman  & Co. (P) Ltd. (supra). In the case of Piara Singh
\nand later on in the case of Dr.T.A.Quereshi (supra)the income of the
\nassessee derived from wholly illegal activities was sought to be
\ntaxed which is  not the  situation in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
21.\tIn
\nthe result,  we hold that the Tribunal erred in allowing the
\ndeduction of fine paid by the assessee in lieu of confiscation of its
\ngoods under the Customs Act. We, therefore answer the question in the
\nnegative, i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
\nThe reference is disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t(Jayant
\nPatel, J.)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t(Akil
\nKureshi, J.)<\/p>\n
(vjn)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Commissioner vs Vishnuram on 4 July, 2008 Bench: Jayant Patel Kureshi, Akil Kureshi ITR\/59\/1999 15\/ 15 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 59 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18228","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner vs Vishnuram on 4 July, 2008 - 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\/commissioner-vs-vishnuram-on-4-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner vs Vishnuram on 4 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vishnuram-on-4-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-01T00:48:58+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vishnuram-on-4-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vishnuram-on-4-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs Vishnuram on 4 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-01T00:48:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vishnuram-on-4-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3380,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vishnuram-on-4-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vishnuram-on-4-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vishnuram-on-4-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Vishnuram on 4 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-01T00:48:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vishnuram-on-4-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vishnuram-on-4-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vishnuram-on-4-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Vishnuram on 4 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Commissioner vs Vishnuram on 4 July, 2008 - 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\/commissioner-vs-vishnuram-on-4-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs Vishnuram on 4 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vishnuram-on-4-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-01T00:48:58+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vishnuram-on-4-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vishnuram-on-4-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs Vishnuram on 4 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-01T00:48:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vishnuram-on-4-july-2008"},"wordCount":3380,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vishnuram-on-4-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vishnuram-on-4-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vishnuram-on-4-july-2008","name":"Commissioner vs Vishnuram on 4 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-01T00:48:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vishnuram-on-4-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vishnuram-on-4-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-vishnuram-on-4-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs Vishnuram on 4 July, 2008"}]},{"@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\/18228","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=18228"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18228\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18228"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18228"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18228"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}