{"id":189120,"date":"2007-02-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tellicherry-pbombws-vs-the-sales-tax-inspector-on-20-february-2007"},"modified":"2019-01-21T10:22:18","modified_gmt":"2019-01-21T04:52:18","slug":"tellicherry-pbombws-vs-the-sales-tax-inspector-on-20-february-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tellicherry-pbombws-vs-the-sales-tax-inspector-on-20-february-2007","title":{"rendered":"Tellicherry Pbombws vs The Sales Tax Inspector on 20 February, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Tellicherry Pbombws vs The Sales Tax Inspector on 20 February, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP No. 3898 of 1999(L)\n\n\n\n1. TELLICHERRY PBOMBWS.\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. THE SALES TAX INSPECTOR,TLY.\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :20\/02\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.\n\n                `````````````````````````````````````\n\n                      O.P. NO. 3898 OF 1999\n\n                      ```````````````````````````\n\n           Dated this the 20th day of February, 2007\n\n\n                           J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      The   petitioner   seeks  an order  quashing  Exhibits  P3   to<\/p>\n
P5 and a direction  to the first  respondent to forebear from<\/p>\n
recovering penalty of Rs.17,288\/- in any manner.  The facts<\/p>\n
which lead to the issuance of the impugned orders are that,<\/p>\n
the petitioner, described to be a mutual benefit society and<\/p>\n
operating   a   Mutual   Benefit   Welfare   Scheme   exclusively   for<\/p>\n
the   private   bus   operators   of   Tellichery,   who   are   also   the<\/p>\n
members   of   the   scheme,   deals   in   motor   spare   parts   and<\/p>\n
lubricating   oils.   For   the   assessment   year   1991-92,   it   was<\/p>\n
seen  from  the returns  filed  by it  that the  turn over  was  in<\/p>\n
excess   of   Rs.50   lakhs,   rendering   the   petitioner   liable   for<\/p>\n
Turnover Tax at =% of the turn over relating to lubricating<\/p>\n
oil and spare parts.    In addition to this,  the petitioner  also<\/p>\n
had  the   liability  to  pay  tax at the  rate  of  4%   on  the  sales<\/p>\n
turn over of barrels.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
OP 3898\/1999                       : 2 :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      2.    Although the returns were filed by the petitioner in<\/p>\n
time,   petitioner   did   not   remit   any   amount   towards   tax   for<\/p>\n
the aforesaid assessment year. As a result of this, Exhibit P1<\/p>\n
notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon it to file its<\/p>\n
objections   to   the   first   respondent   against   the   proposal   to<\/p>\n
impose a penalty of Rs.69,200\/-, being  double  the amount<\/p>\n
of   tax   due.   In   response,   Exhibit   P2   is   the   representation<\/p>\n
filed   by   the   petitioner   and   thereafter   considering   the<\/p>\n
objections   filed   by   Exhibit   P3   order,   the   first   respondent<\/p>\n
imposed   a   penalty   of   Rs.69,100\/-   on   the   petitioner.   In<\/p>\n
Exhibit P3, it has been found that inspite of specific demand<\/p>\n
made at the time of verification of accounts on 25\/1\/93, the<\/p>\n
petitioner   did   not   care   to   remit   the   tax   and   thus   had<\/p>\n
consciously   continued   to   unauthorisedly   retain   tax   due   to<\/p>\n
the Government.  It is also stated that the dealer had failed<\/p>\n
to supply any explanation for non payment of tax inspite of<\/p>\n
service of notice.  It was on this basis that the petitioner has<\/p>\n
been   found   to   have   consciously   violated   the   provisions   of<\/p>\n
OP 3898\/1999                        : 3 :\n<\/p>\n
the Act deserving maximum penalty.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      3.    The   petitioner   pursued   the   matter   in   revision<\/p>\n
before the 2nd respondent.  But by Ext.P4 order it was found<\/p>\n
that in view of the non remittance of tax, the order imposing<\/p>\n
penalty   is   in   accordance   with   law.     However,   the   2nd<\/p>\n
respondent reduced the penalty to equal amount of tax due<\/p>\n
that   is   Rs.34,576\/-   to   be   just   and   reasonable.     Still<\/p>\n
unsatisfied   with   the   reduction   at   the   hands   of   the   2nd<\/p>\n
respondent, the petitioner again filed revision before the 3rd<\/p>\n
respondent.  By Exhibit P5, the 3rd respondent held that the<\/p>\n
petitioner   is   guilty   of   the   lapses   as   already   found   by   the<\/p>\n
lower   authorities   and   deserve   to   be   penalised.     However,<\/p>\n
considering  the fact that  the petitioner  is  an association  of<\/p>\n
bus   operators   and   taking   into   account   remittance   of   the<\/p>\n
entire   tax   demanded   by   the   assessing   authority,   the   3rd<\/p>\n
respondent   reduced   the   penalty   amount   to   Rs.17,288\/-<\/p>\n
being 50% of the tax due.   It is challenging this order that<\/p>\n
the present O.P is filed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
OP 3898\/1999                         : 4 :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      4.    Counsel for the petitioner submits that even as on<\/p>\n
date, the tax liability of the petitioner has not  been finalised<\/p>\n
in  as  much  as  the   Sales  Tax  Appellate  Tribunal,  Additional<\/p>\n
Bench,   Kozhikode   has   passed   order   dated   24th  February<\/p>\n
1999     setting   aside   the   assessment   order   in   question   and<\/p>\n
remanded   the   matter   to   the   assessing   authority   for   fresh<\/p>\n
assessment.     According   to   him,   the   assessing   authority   is<\/p>\n
still   seized   of  the   matter   and    the  matter   has   not  reached<\/p>\n
finality.   According   to   the   counsel,   at   this   stage   it   is<\/p>\n
premature   to   impose   penalty   on   the   petitioner.     It   is   also<\/p>\n
submitted that the petitioner had no guilty intention or nor<\/p>\n
was there any mens rea   warranting imposition  of penalty,<\/p>\n
which,   according   to   the   counsel,   is   evident   from   the   facts<\/p>\n
detailed in the original petition.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      5.    Having  considered  the contentions  of  the  learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner and the submissions  made by the<\/p>\n
learned   Government   pleader,   I   am   not   satisfied   that   the<\/p>\n
petitioner   has   made   out   a   case   for   interference.     It   is   an<\/p>\n
OP 3898\/1999                         : 5 :\n<\/p>\n
admitted   fact   that   along   with   the   return   or   even<\/p>\n
subsequently on receipt of notice from the department, the<\/p>\n
petitioner   did   not   remit   tax,   which   he   was   obliged   to   do<\/p>\n
under  the provisions  of the Act.  Thus  in  this  case,  there  is<\/p>\n
an admitted  lapse on the part of the petitioner and such  a<\/p>\n
lapse,   in   terms   of   the   provisions  of  the  Act,  attracts  penal<\/p>\n
consequences   as   embodied   in   Section   45A.   Therefore   the<\/p>\n
proceedings   initiated   against   the   petitioner   under   Section<\/p>\n
45A cannot be found fault with.  I am also not persuaded to<\/p>\n
accept   the   petitioner’s   plea   that   there   was   no   guilty<\/p>\n
intention when they failed to remit the tax due. As already<\/p>\n
noticed, not only was there violation of statutory obligation<\/p>\n
to   remit   at   the   time   when   return   was   filed,   but   also   even<\/p>\n
subsequent notices issued by the department did not evoke<\/p>\n
any response from the petitioner. The necessary inference is<\/p>\n
that the attempt was only to avoid payment of tax.<\/p>\n
      6.    What   remains   to   be   considered   is   the   question<\/p>\n
whether the amount of penalty that was imposed is just and<\/p>\n
OP 3898\/1999                         : 6 :\n<\/p>\n
reasonable.     As   per   Section   45   A,   double   the   tax   is   the<\/p>\n
maximum   leviable   penalty,   in   cases   where   tax   liability   is<\/p>\n
quantifiable  as in this case.  As already noted,  while  the 1st<\/p>\n
respondent   imposed   double   the   amount   of   tax   as   penalty,<\/p>\n
the  2nd  respondent, in revision,  reduced  the same  to equal<\/p>\n
amount   of   tax.     Still   later,   the   3rd  respondent,   in   revision,<\/p>\n
again reduced the same to 50% of the amount of tax.  Thus<\/p>\n
the quantum of penalty as finally levied on the petitioner is<\/p>\n
only 50% of the tax due. In the circumstances of the case, I<\/p>\n
do   not   think   it   is   too   disproportionate   warranting<\/p>\n
interference by this court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      In the result, writ petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs<\/p>\n
sought for and writ petition is dismissed.  No costs.<\/p>\n
                                              ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE<\/p>\n
Rp<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Tellicherry Pbombws vs The Sales Tax Inspector on 20 February, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP No. 3898 of 1999(L) 1. TELLICHERRY PBOMBWS. … Petitioner Vs 1. THE SALES TAX INSPECTOR,TLY. … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC Dated :20\/02\/2007 […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-189120","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nTellicherry Pbombws vs The Sales Tax Inspector on 20 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\/tellicherry-pbombws-vs-the-sales-tax-inspector-on-20-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tellicherry Pbombws vs The Sales Tax Inspector on 20 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tellicherry-pbombws-vs-the-sales-tax-inspector-on-20-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=\"2007-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-21T04:52:18+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tellicherry-pbombws-vs-the-sales-tax-inspector-on-20-february-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tellicherry-pbombws-vs-the-sales-tax-inspector-on-20-february-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tellicherry Pbombws vs The Sales Tax Inspector on 20 February, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-21T04:52:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tellicherry-pbombws-vs-the-sales-tax-inspector-on-20-february-2007\"},\"wordCount\":995,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tellicherry-pbombws-vs-the-sales-tax-inspector-on-20-february-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tellicherry-pbombws-vs-the-sales-tax-inspector-on-20-february-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tellicherry-pbombws-vs-the-sales-tax-inspector-on-20-february-2007\",\"name\":\"Tellicherry Pbombws vs The Sales Tax Inspector on 20 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-21T04:52:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tellicherry-pbombws-vs-the-sales-tax-inspector-on-20-february-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tellicherry-pbombws-vs-the-sales-tax-inspector-on-20-february-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tellicherry-pbombws-vs-the-sales-tax-inspector-on-20-february-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tellicherry Pbombws vs The Sales Tax Inspector on 20 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":"Tellicherry Pbombws vs The Sales Tax Inspector on 20 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\/tellicherry-pbombws-vs-the-sales-tax-inspector-on-20-february-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tellicherry Pbombws vs The Sales Tax Inspector on 20 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tellicherry-pbombws-vs-the-sales-tax-inspector-on-20-february-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-21T04:52:18+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tellicherry-pbombws-vs-the-sales-tax-inspector-on-20-february-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tellicherry-pbombws-vs-the-sales-tax-inspector-on-20-february-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tellicherry Pbombws vs The Sales Tax Inspector on 20 February, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-21T04:52:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tellicherry-pbombws-vs-the-sales-tax-inspector-on-20-february-2007"},"wordCount":995,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tellicherry-pbombws-vs-the-sales-tax-inspector-on-20-february-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tellicherry-pbombws-vs-the-sales-tax-inspector-on-20-february-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tellicherry-pbombws-vs-the-sales-tax-inspector-on-20-february-2007","name":"Tellicherry Pbombws vs The Sales Tax Inspector on 20 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-21T04:52:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tellicherry-pbombws-vs-the-sales-tax-inspector-on-20-february-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tellicherry-pbombws-vs-the-sales-tax-inspector-on-20-february-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tellicherry-pbombws-vs-the-sales-tax-inspector-on-20-february-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tellicherry Pbombws vs The Sales Tax Inspector on 20 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\/189120","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=189120"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189120\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=189120"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=189120"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=189120"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}