{"id":189121,"date":"2011-08-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanthi-trading-company-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-fac-on-10-august-2011"},"modified":"2016-12-31T14:19:16","modified_gmt":"2016-12-31T08:49:16","slug":"shanthi-trading-company-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-fac-on-10-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanthi-trading-company-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-fac-on-10-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Shanthi Trading Company vs The Commercial Tax Officer (Fac) on 10 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shanthi Trading Company vs The Commercial Tax Officer (Fac) on 10 August, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 10\/08\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA\n\nW.P.(MD)No.10154 of 2006\n\nShanthi Trading Company,\nrepresented by its Proprietor-David Chelladurai\nNo.22-C, Kulasekaranathar Koil Street,\nTenkasi,\nTirunelveli District.\t\t\t\t\t  ..Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.  The Commercial Tax Officer (FAC),\n    Tenkasi,\n    Tirunelveli District.\n\n2.  The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer(Enf),\n    Tirunelveli.\n\n3.  The Special Commissioner and\n    Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,\n    Special Committee(CT),\n    Chepauk,\n    Chennai-5.\n\n\n4.  The Secretary to Government,\n    Commercial Tax Department,\n    Special Committee(CT),\n    Fort St.George,\n    Chennai-9.\n\n5.  The Secretary to Government,\n    Finance Department,\n    Special Committee(CT),\n    Fort St.George,\n    Chennai-9.\t\t\t\t\t\t..Respondents.\t\t\n\t\t\n!For Petitioner  ... M\/s.M.Md.Ibrahim Ali\n^For Respondents ... Mr.D.Muruganandam\n\t\t     Addl.Govt.Pleader\n\nPrayer\n\nWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,\npraying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the\nrecords relating to the order passed by the Committee consists of the\nrespondents 3 to 5  and to direct the Special Committee consists of respondents\n3 to 5  in SCP No.29\/2006(CCT\/M3\/44346), dated 13.09.2006 and to quash the same\nand to direct the Special Committee consists of respondents 3 to 5 to pass\norders on the petition submitted by the petitioner on 7.11.2005.\n \t\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under<br \/>\nArticle 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ in the<br \/>\nnature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 13.09.2006, passed by the Special<br \/>\nCommittee under Section 16-D of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.  In support of the prayer, it is the pleaded case of the petitioner,<br \/>\nthat the petitioner is a dealer of Beedi Leaves and Tobacco carrying on business<br \/>\nin the name of &#8216;Shanthi Trading Company&#8217; at Tenkasi. The place of business of<br \/>\nthe petitioner was inspected by the officials of the Enforcement Wing on<br \/>\n29.04.2003 in the absence of the Proprietor of the firm. At that time, only<br \/>\nsales bill were kept as the Account Books were under lock and key.  It is for<br \/>\nthis reason, the person in-charge at the time  of inspection could not produce<br \/>\nthe account books before the officials of the Enforcement Wing.  The Inspecting<br \/>\nofficers secured 11  slips of papers  containing business transactions and for<br \/>\nwant of account books treated it to be suppression  and recorded the statement<br \/>\nof person in-charge.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. It is the case of the petitioner that after recording of the statement<br \/>\non 28.10.2003, the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing in the<br \/>\nenquiry.  At the time of enquiry, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Tenkasi<br \/>\nrecorded that entire 11 slips stood accounted for and there is no suppression of<br \/>\nsales transaction.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Thereafter, contrary to this fact, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer<br \/>\nassessed the tax by treating these slips to be suppression of turn over.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The petitioner has the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 31 of<br \/>\nthe Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, against the orders passed by the<br \/>\nDeputy Commercial Tax Officer.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Section 31 of the Act reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t31. Appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.&#8211;(1) Any person<br \/>\nobjecting to an order passed by the appropriate authority under Section 4-A,<br \/>\nsub-section (3) of Section 10, Section 12, Section 12-A, Section 14, Section 15,<br \/>\nsub-sections(1) and (2) of Section 16, Section 18, sub-sections(2) of Section<br \/>\n22, Section 23 or Section 27 other than an order passed by an Assistant<br \/>\nCommissioner(Assessment) may, within a period of thirty days from the date on<br \/>\nwhich the order was served on him in the manner prescribed, appeal against such<br \/>\norder to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction.:<br \/>\n\tProvided that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may, within a further<br \/>\nperiod of thirty days admit an appeal presented after the expiration of the<br \/>\nfirst mentioned period of thirty days if he is satisfied that the appellant had<br \/>\nsufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the first mentioned<br \/>\nperiod;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tProvided further that in the case of an order under sub-section (3) of<br \/>\nSection 10, Section 12, Section 12-A,Section 14, Section 15 or sub-sections (1)<br \/>\nand (2) of Section 16, no appeal shall be entertained under this sub-section<br \/>\nunless it is accompanied by satisfactory proof of the payment of the tax<br \/>\nadmitted by the appellant to be due of such instalments thereof as might have<br \/>\nbecome payable, as the case may be, and (twenty-five) per cent of the difference<br \/>\nof the tax assessed by the assessing authority and the tax admitted by the<br \/>\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(2) The appeal shall be in the prescribed form and shall be verified in<br \/>\nthe prescribed manner and shall be accompanied  by such fee not exceeding one<br \/>\nhundred rupees as may be prescribed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(3) In disposing of an appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may,<br \/>\nafter giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and for the<br \/>\nsufficient reasons to be recorded in writing&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(a) in the case of an order of assessment&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i) confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment or the penalty or<br \/>\nboth;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) set aside the assessment and direct the assessing authority to make a<br \/>\nfresh assessment after such further inquiry as may be directed; or\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii) pass such other orders as he may think fit; or\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(b) in the case of any other order, confirm, cancel or vary such order;<br \/>\n\tProvided that at the hearing of any appeal, the appropriate authority<br \/>\nshall have the right to be heard either in person or by a representative.<br \/>\n\t(4) Omitted by Act No.31 of 1972 w.e.f. 1st December 1972.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(5) Notwithstanding that an appeal has been preferred under sub-section<br \/>\n(1), the tax shall be paid in accordance with the order of assessment against<br \/>\nwhich the appeal has been preferred;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tProvided that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may, in his discretion,<br \/>\ngive such directions as he thinks fit in regard to the payment of the tax before<br \/>\nthe disposal of the appeal, if the appellant furnishes sufficient security to<br \/>\nhis satisfaction, in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The petitioner instead of availing the appeal remedy filed a<br \/>\nrepresentation with the appellate authority showing his inability to deposit 25%<br \/>\nof the tax.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. The petitioner thereafter invoked Section 16-D of the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nGeneral Sales Tax Act, 1959, which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16-D. Constitution of Special Committee.&#8211;(1) The Government shall appoint<br \/>\na Special Committee consisting of (1) Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes<br \/>\nDepartment (2) Commissioner of Commercial Taxes; (3) Secretary to Government,<br \/>\nFinance Department or his nominee.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Special Committee<br \/>\nmay, of its own motion or on application, call for and examine the records of<br \/>\nthe assessing authority in respect of any proceeding or order under sub-<br \/>\nsection(2) or (3) of Section 12 or sub-section(1) and (2) of Section 16, if such<br \/>\nproceeding or order is passed in violation of the provisions of the Act or rules<br \/>\nmade thereunder or without following the principles of natural justice, set<br \/>\naside the said proceeding or order and direct the assessing authority to make a<br \/>\nfresh assessment and pass fresh proceeding or order in such manner as may be<br \/>\ndirected.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tProvided that such proceeding or order against which any appeal or writ is<br \/>\npending shall not be entertained under this sub-section.<br \/>\n\t(3) The order passed under sub-section(2) shall be final.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. The Special Committee under Section 16-D dismissed the  application, by<br \/>\nrecording a finding that there was no violation of rules or principles of<br \/>\nnatural justice or violative of statutory provision of the act or rules which<br \/>\ncould entitle the Committee to exercise suo-motu power or on an application of<br \/>\nthe petitioner to enter with the orders passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax<br \/>\nOfficer.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned<br \/>\norder by contending that the order passed by the Special Committee under Section<br \/>\n16-D in exercise of quasi judicial power is not a speaking order, as it has not<br \/>\ndealt with the grounds raised by the petitioner in the application filed by the<br \/>\npetitioner to challenge the order of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\nvehemently contended, that the reading of assessment order itself reveal that<br \/>\nthe Deputy Commercial Tax Officer after giving opportunity of hearing to the<br \/>\npetitioner had recorded a finding that 11 slips recovered at the time of<br \/>\ninspection stood accounted for. Inspite of the positive finding  while passing<br \/>\nthe order of assessment, a contrary finding to the one observed above is<br \/>\nrecorded holding that there was suppression of turnover shown in the 11 slips,<br \/>\nrecovered at the time of inspection and the impugned order, was passed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the<br \/>\nimpugned order cannot be sustained, as it is outcome of non-application of mind,<br \/>\nas no reasons have been recorded to reject this contention.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. On consideration, I find no ground to interfere with the order under<br \/>\nSection 16-D of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act as the Special Committee<br \/>\nwas right in dismissing the application on the ground that there was no<br \/>\nviolation of statutory provisions of the rules nor there was no violation  of<br \/>\nprinciples of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. A reading of  Section 16-D shows that  this is a special provision<br \/>\nvesting jurisdiction with the Special Committee, to exercise suo-motu power or<br \/>\non an application of the party, in case, the order is patently bad being<br \/>\nviolative of principles of natural justice or is in violation of statutory<br \/>\nprovisions of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. Section 16-D is not a substitute for statutory appeal.  The contention<br \/>\nraised by the petitioner at best can show the order passed by the Deputy<br \/>\nCommercial Tax Officer was bad in law, but it was not an order which was lacked<br \/>\njurisdiction  or was in violation of statutory provisions of law or in violation<br \/>\nof principles of natural justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner  that the<br \/>\nexercise under Section 16-D can also be exercised  when the order is illegal<br \/>\ncannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17. The Legislature did not enact Section 16-D to by-pass the statutory<br \/>\nremedy of appeal.  It was for the petitioner to file an appeal and in case of<br \/>\ninability to  deposit the tax  he could have approached the appellate authority<br \/>\nfor deciding the appeal without insisting for furnishing of deposit of tax at<br \/>\n25% therein by furnishing security as provided under Section 31 of the Tamil<br \/>\nNadu General Sales Tax Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18. As already held above, in view of the availability of statutory<br \/>\nappeal, and there being no violation of statutory provisions or of natural<br \/>\njustice, the application filed by the petitioner was rightly rejected by the<br \/>\nSpecial Committee, which does not call for any interference by this Court in<br \/>\nexercise of extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t19. Finding no merits, the Writ Petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t20. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t21. However petitioner shall  be at liberty to challenge the assessment<br \/>\norder in appeal, if so advised. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner<br \/>\nbona fide filed a petition under Section 16-D and thereafter,  approached this<br \/>\nCourt by way of this Writ, in case appeal is  filed in accordance with law,<br \/>\nwithin 30 days of receipt of certified copy of this order. The appellate<br \/>\nauthority shall decide it on merit by treating it to be filed within limitation.\n<\/p>\n<p>vsn<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Commercial Tax Officer (FAC),<br \/>\n    Tenkasi,<br \/>\n    Tirunelveli District.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer(Enf),<br \/>\n    Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The Special Commissioner and<br \/>\n    Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,<br \/>\n    Special Committee(CT),<br \/>\n    Chepauk,<br \/>\n    Chennai-5.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.  The Secretary to Government,<br \/>\n    Commercial Tax Department,<br \/>\n    Special Committee(CT),<br \/>\n    Fort St.George,<br \/>\n    Chennai-9.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.  The Secretary to Government,<br \/>\n    Finance Department,<br \/>\n    Special Committee(CT),<br \/>\n    Fort St.George,<br \/>\n    Chennai-9.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Shanthi Trading Company vs The Commercial Tax Officer (Fac) on 10 August, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10\/08\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P.(MD)No.10154 of 2006 Shanthi Trading Company, represented by its Proprietor-David Chelladurai No.22-C, Kulasekaranathar Koil Street, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District. ..Petitioner Vs 1. The [&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-189121","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>Shanthi Trading Company vs The Commercial Tax Officer (Fac) on 10 August, 2011 - 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\/shanthi-trading-company-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-fac-on-10-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shanthi Trading Company vs The Commercial Tax Officer (Fac) on 10 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanthi-trading-company-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-fac-on-10-august-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-31T08:49:16+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanthi-trading-company-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-fac-on-10-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanthi-trading-company-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-fac-on-10-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shanthi Trading Company vs The Commercial Tax Officer (Fac) on 10 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-31T08:49:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanthi-trading-company-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-fac-on-10-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1709,\"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\\\/shanthi-trading-company-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-fac-on-10-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanthi-trading-company-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-fac-on-10-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanthi-trading-company-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-fac-on-10-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Shanthi Trading Company vs The Commercial Tax Officer (Fac) on 10 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-31T08:49:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanthi-trading-company-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-fac-on-10-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanthi-trading-company-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-fac-on-10-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanthi-trading-company-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-fac-on-10-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shanthi Trading Company vs The Commercial Tax Officer (Fac) on 10 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Shanthi Trading Company vs The Commercial Tax Officer (Fac) on 10 August, 2011 - 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\/shanthi-trading-company-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-fac-on-10-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shanthi Trading Company vs The Commercial Tax Officer (Fac) on 10 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanthi-trading-company-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-fac-on-10-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-31T08:49:16+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanthi-trading-company-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-fac-on-10-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanthi-trading-company-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-fac-on-10-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shanthi Trading Company vs The Commercial Tax Officer (Fac) on 10 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-31T08:49:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanthi-trading-company-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-fac-on-10-august-2011"},"wordCount":1709,"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\/shanthi-trading-company-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-fac-on-10-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanthi-trading-company-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-fac-on-10-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanthi-trading-company-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-fac-on-10-august-2011","name":"Shanthi Trading Company vs The Commercial Tax Officer (Fac) on 10 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-31T08:49:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanthi-trading-company-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-fac-on-10-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanthi-trading-company-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-fac-on-10-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanthi-trading-company-vs-the-commercial-tax-officer-fac-on-10-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shanthi Trading Company vs The Commercial Tax Officer (Fac) on 10 August, 2011"}]},{"@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\/189121","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=189121"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189121\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=189121"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=189121"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=189121"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}