{"id":185493,"date":"2007-02-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ragam-polymers-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-5-february-2007"},"modified":"2015-05-22T04:40:18","modified_gmt":"2015-05-21T23:10:18","slug":"tvl-ragam-polymers-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-5-february-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ragam-polymers-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-5-february-2007","title":{"rendered":"Tvl.Ragam Polymers vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 5 February, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Tvl.Ragam Polymers vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 5 February, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n                              \n                     DATED:  05-02-2007\n                              \n                           CORAM:\n                              \n        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN\n\n                              \n                 Writ Petition No.35240 of 2005\n                      (O.P.No.1261 of 2003)\n\n\n\nTvl.Ragam Polymers,\nNo.4, Theetharappran Street,\nChennai 5.                                        ...Petitioner\n\n                             vs.\n\nThe Commercial Tax Officer,\nIce House Assessment Circle,\nGreenways Road, Chennai 28.                       ...Respondent\n\n\n\n      Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of\nIndia  for  the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus  as\nstated within.\n\n\n     For Petitioner      : Mr.P.Radhakrishnan\n\n     For Respondents     : Mr.Haja Nazirudeen,\n\t\t\t   Special Government Pleader,(T)\n\n                              \n\n                            ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
      The  petitioner filed O.P. No.1261 of 2003 before  the<\/p>\n
Tribunal  praying to quash the order of assessment passed by<\/p>\n
the  respondent  in TNGST No.126868\/94-95  dated  30.09.2003<\/p>\n
consequent  to  the remand order of the Appellate  Assistant<\/p>\n
Commissioner (CT)-IV, Chennai passed in petitioner’s  Appeal<\/p>\n
in  AP. No.311 of 1999 dated 17.07.2001 as violative of  the<\/p>\n
principles of natural justice and against the provisions  of<\/p>\n
the TNGST Act since the same has been passed without issuing<\/p>\n
a  notice  and  without  following  the  directions  of  the<\/p>\n
Appellate  Authority  issued in the  petitioner’s  aforesaid<\/p>\n
Appeal which is binding on the respondent herein.<\/p>\n
     2.  The facts, in short, are :\n<\/p>\n
      For  the  assessment year 1994-95 the  petitioner  was<\/p>\n
originally assessed on the basis of the returns and books of<\/p>\n
accounts  in the year 1996.  Later on, on the basis  of  the<\/p>\n
inspection  report  of the Enforcement  wing  officials  (D3<\/p>\n
proposals)  the respondent revised the order  of  assessment<\/p>\n
for  the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95 on 17.11.1998.<\/p>\n
Against  the  said order of assessment for  the  above  said<\/p>\n
assessment  years, the petitioner preferred  appeals  before<\/p>\n
the  Appellate  Assistant Commissioner (CT  IV)  in  Appeals<\/p>\n
Nos.312  and  311\/1999.   The  appellate  authority,   after<\/p>\n
verification   of  the  books  of  accounts  and   necessary<\/p>\n
documents  in  support  of the bill  discounting,  passed  a<\/p>\n
detailed  common  order on 17.07.2001 partly  remanding  and<\/p>\n
partly  dismissing the appeal and the matter stood  remanded<\/p>\n
back  to the assessing officer to reconsider the issue  with<\/p>\n
certain  directions.  The assessing officer, who passed  the<\/p>\n
revised  order, which is the subject matter  of  the  appeal<\/p>\n
before  the appellate authority and which has been  remanded<\/p>\n
back  with  the specific directions, has over-stretched  his<\/p>\n
jurisdiction,  and  passed the impugned order.   Hence,  the<\/p>\n
present OP, which is now converted to this writ petition  on<\/p>\n
being transferred to the file of this Court.<\/p>\n
      3.   Heard  the  learned counsel on  either  side  and<\/p>\n
perused the materials available on record.<\/p>\n
       4.   The  order  of  the  appellate  authority  dated<\/p>\n
17.11.1998 on which reliance was placed read as follows :<\/p>\n
        “When  the appellants had admitted that the  sale
\n  bills  were  issued for the purpose of  discounting  by
\n  the  bank  only and produced documentary  evidence  for
\n  discounting  of the bills, it cannot be  presumed  that
\n  the  actual sales transactions had taken place  in  the
\n  above  bills,  unless the department provides  positive
\n  proof  for  the actual sales.  The goods were allegedly
\n  supplied  to  two customers in Chennai  only.   One  of
\n  them  Tvl.  EID  Parry  ltd.,  have  already  issued  a
\n  certificate  denying the transactions involved  in  the
\n  sales   bills   issued   for  the   purpose   of   bill
\n  discounting.  The appellants expressed their  inability
\n  to  get  a  similar certificate from Tvl. Shaw  Wallace
\n  Co.  Ltd.,  due  to  administrative problems.   If  the
\n  department  is  particular to prove  the  transactions,
\n  the  accounts  of Tvl. EID Parry Ltd.,  and  Tvl.  Shaw
\n  Wallace Co. Ltd., could have been verified. But  merely
\n  on  the  basis of invoices only, the actual sales  have
\n  been  presumed, without establishing the fact  transfer
\n  of  property  in  goods had taken  place  for  valuable
\n  consideration.”\n<\/p>\n
\nThe appellate authority, while observing as above, concluded<\/p>\n
as follows :\n<\/p>\n
   “I  set  aside the assessment made on the rest of  the<\/p>\n
   turnover  of  Rs.24,31,419\/- and remand  back  to  the<\/p>\n
   assessing authority with the following directions:<\/p>\n
          a)    The details that would be furnished by the appellants
\nin respect of entries available in slip Nos.11, 13, 21, 22,
\n29, 30 and 31 should be verified with reference to the
\naccounts of the appellants and if the transactions involved
\nthe slips had already accounted for by the appellants, the
\nassessment made by the turnover of Rs.2,29,599\/- along with
\nestimated suppression should be deleted.\n<\/p>\n
\t b)    Tvl. EID Parry Ltd., and Tvl. Shaw Wallace Co., are
\ncompanies of some repute.  Therefore, the alleged sales
\ntransactions involved in bill discounting and reflected in
\nthe invoices recovered at the time of inspection should be
\ncross verified with the above buyers.\n<\/p>\n
\tc)   If the transactions reflect in the accounts of the
\nabove buyers, such transactions should be assessed, if not
\nalready assessed.\n<\/p>\n
\td)   If the transactions do not reflect in the books of
\naccounts of the buyers, the assessment on such transactions
\nshould be deleted.\n<\/p>\n
\nPursuant to the same, the impugned assessment order has been<\/p>\n
made.   On seeing the assessment order, it is manifest  that<\/p>\n
none of the directions issued by the appellate authority has<\/p>\n
been  taken note off while passing the order impugned.   The<\/p>\n
assessing officer has not taken any pain to comply with  the<\/p>\n
directions.  On the other hand, he has pointed out that  the<\/p>\n
assessee has not supplied the relevant materials. It is  not<\/p>\n
as  if  the onus of proof on the part of the assessee vis-a-<\/p>\n
vis  the  assessing officer has not been considered  by  the<\/p>\n
Courts  or the appellate authorities.  It has been  held  in<\/p>\n
several cases, and one among them is the order of the  Tamil<\/p>\n
Nadu  Taxation Special Tribunal in O.P. Nos.116 and  117  of<\/p>\n
1999 dated 11.03.1999 (M\/s. Orjay Packaging products v. CTO,<\/p>\n
Coimbatore),  wherein  the  appellate  Tribunal  constituted<\/p>\n
under Article 323-B of the Constitution, in a similar set of<\/p>\n
facts, has opined that the action of the assessing authority<\/p>\n
in  proposing to ignore the order of the AAC and  adopt  his<\/p>\n
own  proposal  earlier  made  prior  to  the  AAC  order  is<\/p>\n
thoroughly  illegal.  Once the order of  assessment  is  set<\/p>\n
aside  by  the  AAC with certain directions,  the  assessing<\/p>\n
authority  is bound to obey the said order of  the  AAC.  In<\/p>\n
that  case it is peculiar that the Tribunal called upon  the<\/p>\n
Government Advocate to collect the factual details from  the<\/p>\n
assessing  officer  and  pursuant  to  that  the  Government<\/p>\n
Advocate  submitted written instructions from the  assessing<\/p>\n
officer.  On  perusal  of  the  written  instructions,   the<\/p>\n
Tribunal  was  of  the opinion that the submission  and  the<\/p>\n
written  instructions support their view that the  assessing<\/p>\n
officer  was trying to over-reach the order of the appellate<\/p>\n
authority and instances have been stated.<\/p>\n
      The  order impugned in the present writ petition is  a<\/p>\n
classical example of one such over-reaching attitude  of the<\/p>\n
assessing  officer.   When  the appellate  authority,  whose<\/p>\n
order is binding on the assessing officer, has given certain<\/p>\n
directions  to  the assessing officer, while  remanding  the<\/p>\n
matter,   the   assessing  officer  cannot  over-reach   the<\/p>\n
appellate  authority’s  order.  If  at  all  the  respondent<\/p>\n
revenue is not satisfied with any of the observations  made,<\/p>\n
it  is  for  them to take that part of the order  on  appeal<\/p>\n
before  the second appellate authority and get it  expunged.<\/p>\n
Leaving  that,  inspite of direction given by the  appellate<\/p>\n
authority,  the  assessing officer cannot stick  on  to  his<\/p>\n
original  position  and  frame his  assessment  to  his  own<\/p>\n
thinking  which  would otherwise destroy the binding  nature<\/p>\n
and  hierarchial procedure of the statutory authorities.  It<\/p>\n
could  also be seen that the assessing officer in his  order<\/p>\n
impugned  has  observed,  as “But they  have  furnished  the<\/p>\n
details  for Rs.          Which they have claimed that  only<\/p>\n
bills  were made for bank  purpose, but not included in  the<\/p>\n
turnover….”.  The assessing officer has not taken  minimum<\/p>\n
care  to  see  that the blank in the order,  as  highlighted<\/p>\n
above is filled up.  An order of assessment, which has civil<\/p>\n
consequence,  cannot be issued in a callous  manner,  as  in<\/p>\n
this  case.    Hence,  the order, which  is  ex  facie  over<\/p>\n
reaching the order of the appellate authority has to be  set<\/p>\n
aside  and  the  matter  has to  be  remitted  back  to  the<\/p>\n
assessing  officer  to  frame assessment  by  following  the<\/p>\n
directions  issued by the appellate authority by  its  order<\/p>\n
dated  17.07.2001. Accordingly, the impugned  order  is  set<\/p>\n
aside  and  the  matter is remitted back  to  the  assessing<\/p>\n
officer  to pass fresh order of assessment by following  the<\/p>\n
directions  issued by the appellate authority by  his  order<\/p>\n
dated  17.07.2001.  The writ petition is ordered  as  above.<\/p>\n
No costs.\n<\/p>\n
mf<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Commercial Tax Officer,
\nIce House Assessment Circle,
\nGreenways Road, Chennai 28.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Tvl.Ragam Polymers vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 5 February, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05-02-2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN Writ Petition No.35240 of 2005 (O.P.No.1261 of 2003) Tvl.Ragam Polymers, No.4, Theetharappran Street, Chennai 5. …Petitioner vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Ice House Assessment Circle, […]<\/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-185493","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nTvl.Ragam Polymers vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 5 February, 2007 - 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\/tvl-ragam-polymers-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-5-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tvl.Ragam Polymers vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 5 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ragam-polymers-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-5-february-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-21T23:10:18+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-ragam-polymers-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-5-february-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-ragam-polymers-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-5-february-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tvl.Ragam Polymers vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 5 February, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-21T23:10:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-ragam-polymers-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-5-february-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1310,\"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-ragam-polymers-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-5-february-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-ragam-polymers-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-5-february-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-ragam-polymers-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-5-february-2007\",\"name\":\"Tvl.Ragam Polymers vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 5 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-21T23:10:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-ragam-polymers-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-5-february-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-ragam-polymers-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-5-february-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tvl-ragam-polymers-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-5-february-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tvl.Ragam Polymers vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 5 February, 2007\"}]},{\"@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.Ragam Polymers vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 5 February, 2007 - 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\/tvl-ragam-polymers-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-5-february-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tvl.Ragam Polymers vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 5 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ragam-polymers-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-5-february-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-21T23:10:18+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-ragam-polymers-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-5-february-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ragam-polymers-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-5-february-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tvl.Ragam Polymers vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 5 February, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-21T23:10:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ragam-polymers-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-5-february-2007"},"wordCount":1310,"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-ragam-polymers-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-5-february-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ragam-polymers-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-5-february-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ragam-polymers-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-5-february-2007","name":"Tvl.Ragam Polymers vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 5 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-21T23:10:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ragam-polymers-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-5-february-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ragam-polymers-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-5-february-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tvl-ragam-polymers-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-on-5-february-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tvl.Ragam Polymers vs The Commercial Tax Officer on 5 February, 2007"}]},{"@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\/185493","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=185493"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185493\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185493"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185493"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185493"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}