{"id":191285,"date":"2004-06-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-06-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-h-vasudeva-pai-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-june-2004"},"modified":"2018-09-04T16:03:48","modified_gmt":"2018-09-04T10:33:48","slug":"b-h-vasudeva-pai-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-june-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-h-vasudeva-pai-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-june-2004","title":{"rendered":"B.H. Vasudeva Pai And Sons vs State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
B.H. Vasudeva Pai And Sons vs State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2004<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: ILR 2004 KAR 2818, 2006 146 STC 232 Kar<\/div>\n
Author: H Dattu<\/div>\n
Bench: H Dattu, A Kabbin<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
H.L. Dattu, J.<\/p>\n
1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in all these petitions, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order.\n<\/p>\n
2. In these Revision Petitions, we are concerned with the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1994-95.\n<\/p>\n
3. The questions of law that would arise for consideration and decision of this Court are:\n<\/p>\n
“I. Whether the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the Authorities under the Act are justified in giving a finding that fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, weedicides, etc., do not fall under the category insecticides and pesticides by solely relying on the amendments made in Entry 117 of the Second Schedule to Karnataka Sales Tax Act?\n<\/p>\n
II. Whether the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case is justified in holding gramaxone, vitto-plant, zimag, etc., do not fall under the category of insecticides and pesticides?\n<\/p>\n
III. Whether the Tribunal is justified in subjecting the second and subsequent sales of gramaxone, vitto-plant, zimag, etc., to turnover tax under Section 6-B of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, even though notification No. F D.32.CSL.81(1) dated 29.6.1981 has exempted second and subsequent sales of insecticides and pesticides from payment of turnover tax?”\n<\/p>\n
4. To answer the aforesaid questions, the brief facts as narrated by the petitioner in the memorandum of revision petitions require to be noticed. They are as under:\n<\/p>\n
The petitioner claims that he is a dealer in insecticides and pesticides, and registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as “KST Act, 1957”). For the assessment years in question, the petitioner had effected second sales of chemical compounds known as Gramoxone, Fermoxone, Vitto-plant, Zimag etc. The petitioner had claimed exemption from payment of turnover tax on the turnover of the aforesaid chemical compounds in view of the Government Notification dated 29.6.1981, on the assumption that those chemical compounds would fall within the meaning of the expression “insecticides and pesticides”. The Assessing Authority while framing the assessment orders for the assessment years in question had rejected the claim of the petitioner for exemption and had subjected the said turnover to turnover tax by holding that the aforesaid goods would fall under the category of herbicides, fungicides, weedicides and plant regulators, etc., and therefore, do not fall under the category of “insecticides and pesticides”, which are alone entitled for benefit of exemption from payment of turnover tax under the aforesaid notification.\n<\/p>\n
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of assessment passed by the Assessing Authority, petitioner had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority taking the very same view, as had been done by the Assessing Authority, had rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner by his common order dated 25.10.1996.\n<\/p>\n
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders made by the First Appellate Authority, the petitioner had preferred separate appeals for different assessment years before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by its common order dated 6.7.1999 rejected the appeals and confirmed the orders made by the Authorities under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
7. The Tribunal while rejecting the appeals filed by the petitioner, in its order observes that the appellant before them is not eligible for exemption from payment of turnover tax under Section 6B of the Act on its second sales as envisaged in the Notification dated 29.6.1981, since the second sales of the chemical compound effected by the appellant would fall under the category fungicides, herbicides, weedicides, etc., and therefore, articles in question are not insecticides and pesticides, which alone qualify for exemption as per the notification. The other reason assigned by the Tribunal while rejecting the appeals filed by the petitioner is that, till 1.4.1992, entry No. 117 of the Second Schedule to the KS.T. Act had included only insecticides and pesticides. Fungicides, weedicides, herbicides etc., were added to this entry with effect from 1.4.1992. If fungicides and herbicides also fall under the category of pesticides and insecticides, then there would not have arisen any need for the Legislature to add fungicides, weedicides and herbicides in Entry 117 vide Karnataka Amendment Act No. 4\/1992. We may observe that the Legislature has chosen to include fungicides, herbicides etc., in Entry 117 of the Second Schedule in 1992, since those chemical compounds are different from insecticides and pesticides.\n<\/p>\n
8. Let us first examine whether the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the appeals filed by the petitioner by referring to Entry No. 117 to the Second Schedule to Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. This issue, in our opinion, need not detain us for long in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of B.H. VASUDEVA PAI & SONS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, STA No. 1\/1987 dated 1.1.1996. That was a case where the dealers claimed exemption from payment of turnover tax in respect of copper sulphate for different assessment years relying upon the Government Notification dated 29.6.1981. The authorities had rejected the claim made by the dealers. The correctness or otherwise of the said orders was questioned by the dealers in the appeals filed before this Court. The primary contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant in that case was that the copper sulphate fell under the category of insecticides and pesticides under Entry 117 of the Second Schedule and even after amendment of the said provision by including copper sulphate in Entry 117, it does not cease to be insecticide and pesticide and that it is only for the purpose of tax leviable under Section 5 of the Act such tax could be attracted and in respect of all other taxes where there is no change of entry, copper sulphate could be still termed as insecticide\/pesticide and it does not cease to get the benefit of notification issued by the State Government dated 29.6.1981.\n<\/p>\n
The Court while accepting the contention canvassed before it was pleased to observe:\n<\/p>\n
“The question raised before us is as to whether Copper Sulphate, if could be treated as insecticide\/pesticide, falls within the scope of the Notification granting exemption from payment of turnover tax. We have to understand the matter from the point of view of the concept of turnover tax and whether the Entries in different schedules to the Act have any relevance for levying such tax or not. It is clear that the entries under the different schedules have no relevance to levy of tax under Section 6B of the Act because what is sought to be taxed is on the turnover of the sales effected irrespective of whether they are otherwise liable to tax or not under the Act. Therefore, it is clear that when Section 6B has not referred to turnover in respect of any of the goods mentioned in the Schedules and the rate of tax levied thereto has no relevance, we fail to understand as to how the Government Pleader could rely upon the expression used in schedules in interpreting the notification in question. That is what was exactly done by the Commissioner\/Joint Commissioner as well. Therefore, we are of the view that the Commissioner\/ Joint Commissioner has entirely missed the scope of the Notification in interpreting the expressing ‘Insecticide\/Pesticide’. At the time When the notification was issued on 29.6.1981 Entry 117 in the II schedule included Copper Sulphate in so far as the expression ‘Insecticide\/Pesticide’ was concerned. It is only subsequently the same underwent change making it clear that Insecticide\/Pesticide excluded copper sulphate. Copper sulphate does not go out of the category of Insecticide\/ Pesticide, but for the purpose of II schedule the same should be dealt with separately. Therefore that treatment cannot be applied to the said expression when it occurs elsewhere. When the authority granting exemption itself understood that the copper sulphate is included in the expression ‘Insecticide\/Pesticide’, the only question to be considered by the authorities is whether copper sulphate is Insecticide\/Pesticide. That question has been considered by the Appellate Authority in these cases by reference to a statute viz., Insecticides Act, 1969 and Insecticides Rules, 1971, and that certainly forms an excellent piece of evidence to indicate whether copper sulphate is Insecticide\/Pesticide. When the Legislature itself recognises such a fact, it is certainly proper for the authorities to rely upon the same.”\n<\/p>\n
9. We also fully endorse the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in B.H. Vasudeva Pai and Sons v. State of Karnataka STA No. 1\/1987 decided on 1st day of January, 1996. In view of this settled legal position in law, the second reason assigned by the Tribunal for rejecting the assessee’s appeal cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
10. The other reason assigned by the Tribunal and the authorities under the Act to deny the exemption claimed from payment of turnover tax in respect of second sales of chemical compounds such as granaxone, vitto-plant, etc., relying upon the notification dated 29.6.1981 is that the said goods fall under the category of fungicides, herbicides, weedicides, etc. and therefore, they do not fall under the category of insecticides and pesticides and therefore, they are not eligible and are not covered by notification dated 29.6.1981.\n<\/p>\n
11. Before we advert to the aforesaid reasoning of the Tribunal and the authorities under the Act denying the benefit of exemption claimed by the assessee relying upon the notification issued by the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 8A of the Act, let us briefly notice the approach of the Courts while interpreting the exemption notifications. The approach of the Courts in strictly interpreting exemption notifications has now been replaced by liberal interpretation in promoting the intention behind exemption, and a rational approach has taken over from the erstwhile strict interpretation of exemption notifications. The orthodox view of strict literal interpretation has given way to purposive interpretation. The earlier view that one has only to look squarely at what is written in the Statute and no more, has been now replaced by an approach where even supposed deficiencies can be made good. The approach now is that there shall be equity and fairness in interpreting the exemption notifications. If two views are possible, one which is fair, does not cause injustice to a party should be preferred to the one which results in unjustness. The Apex Court in a recent decision in the case of Bombay Chemicals Private Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay<\/a> 99 STC 339, has observed:\n<\/p>\n
 “The test of strict construction of exemption notifications applies at the entry, that is, whether particular goods are capable of falling in one or the other category but once they fall within the category then the exemption notification has to be construed broadly and widely,”\n<\/p>\n
12. Now let us now consider the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis before this Court. The learned Counsel Sri Murthy would submit that the Authorities under the Act, as well as the Tribunal were not justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of exemption from payment of turnover tax payable under Section 6B of the Act by registered dealer on the second and subsequent sales of chemical compounds, namely, herbicides, fungicides and weedicides, etc. According to the learned Counsel, herbicides, weedicides and fungicides are “pesticides” and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Government Notification dated 29.6.1981.\n<\/p>\n
13. Sri Anand, learned Government Advocate would contend that the object and purpose of the notification is to grant exemption only to the category of goods notified under the notification and therefore, what is exempted from payment of turnover tax under the notification is the second and subsequent sales of insecticides and pesticides by a registered dealer and it is further contended that fungicides, weedicides and herbicides would not come within the meaning of expression either insecticides or pesticides.\n<\/p>\n
14. The meaning of expression “insecticides or pesticides” is not defined under the Act. Therefore, it is permissible to refer to the dictionary meaning of the expression “insecticides and pesticides”. In the World Book Encyclopedia – Volume 10, the meaning of the expression ‘insecticide’ is defined as under:\n<\/p>\n
“Insecticide is a substance that kills insects. Insecticides are sometimes, called pesticides. But pesticides include substances used to control mice, weeds, and other pests besides insects. Farmers and gardeners use insecticides to protect plants and animals. There are different types of insecticides. They are organic, inorganic, botanical, and microbial insecticides”.\n<\/p>\n
Pesticide is a chemical used to control or eliminate pests. Insects are probably the major pests. Many kinds of insects transmit serious diseases, such as malaria and typhus. Some insects destroy or cause heavy damage to valuable crops, such as corn and cotton. Other common pests include bacteria, fungi, rats, and such weeds as poison ivy and ragweed. Manufacturers use various chemicals in making pesticides. There are number of types of pesticides. Pests are classified according to the pests they control. The four most widely used types of pesticides are (1) insecticides, (2) herbicides, (3) fungicides, and (4) rodenticides.”\n<\/p>\n
15. The Apex Court in the case of BOMBAY CHEMICAL PVX LTD. v. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY,<\/a> 99 STC 339 also had an occasion to notice the meaning of the expression pesticides’. In the said decision, the Apex Court has stated as under:\n<\/p>\n
 “A disinfectant which, therefore, is used for killing may broadly be covered in the word “pesticide”. Disinfectants, may be of two types; one to disinfect and other to destroy the germs. The former, i.e. those products which are used as disinfectant for instance lavender, etc., may not be covered in the expression ” pesticide”. But those products, which are used for killing insects by use of substances such as high boiling tar acid, have the same characteristic as “pesticide”.”\n<\/p>\n
16. The Notification issued by the State Government dated 29.6.1981 grants exemption on the turnover of tax payable under Section 6B of the Act by a registered dealer on the second and subsequent sales of chemical fertilizers, bone-meal and oil cake and secondly, insecticides and pesticides.\n<\/p>\n
17. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein has effected second sales amounting to Rs. 16,09,188.15 of Gramoxone, Fermoxon, Vittoplant, Zimag etc. The petitioner had claimed exemption on sales turnover of the aforesaid chemical compounds on the ground that those compounds come under the expression’ ‘pesticides’. The Assessing Authorities, as we have already noticed, have rejected the claim of the petitioner and the said order has been affirmed by the Tribunal also, only on the ground that the sales of chemical compound effected by the petitioner are fungicides, herbicides, weedicides, etc.<\/p>\n
18. In our Opinion, pesticides is a general term which means, a chemical used to destroy the pests. The individual names like herbicides, fungicides, weedicides etc., are given as they are intended to destroy the specific pest or organism, which causes such pests. Therefore, it can safely be said that fungicides, herbicides and weedicides are not different from pesticides. Even in the Manual for Pesticides published by the Pesticides Association of India, while explaining the meaning of expression ‘pesticides’ has included insecticides, fungicides, herbicides and rodenticides. In view of the dictionary meaning of the word ‘pesticides’ and the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of Bombay Chemical Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, and<\/a> also the meaning of the expression ‘pesticides’ explained in the Manual for Pesticides published by the Pesticides Association of India, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the herbicides, fungicides, weedicides etc., can be included within the word ‘pesticides’. If that is so, in our opinion, the petitioner is eligible and entitled for exemption from payment of turnover tax as envisaged under the Notification No. FD.32.CSL. 81(1), Bangalore, dated 29.6.1981.\n<\/p>\n
19. In the result, these revision petitions succeed and are allowed. The orders made by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in S.T.A.Nos. 42\/ 97, 43\/97 and 44\/97 dated 6.7.1999 are set aside. The matter is now remanded back to the Assessing Authority to recompute the tax liability of the petitioner keeping in view the observations made by this Court in the course of the order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court B.H. Vasudeva Pai And Sons vs State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2004 Equivalent citations: ILR 2004 KAR 2818, 2006 146 STC 232 Kar Author: H Dattu Bench: H Dattu, A Kabbin ORDER H.L. Dattu, J. 1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in all these petitions, they are […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-191285","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nB.H. Vasudeva Pai And Sons vs State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2004 - 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\/b-h-vasudeva-pai-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-june-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B.H. Vasudeva Pai And Sons vs State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-h-vasudeva-pai-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-june-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-06-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-04T10:33:48+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-h-vasudeva-pai-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-june-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-h-vasudeva-pai-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-june-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"B.H. Vasudeva Pai And Sons vs State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-06-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-04T10:33:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-h-vasudeva-pai-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-june-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2687,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-h-vasudeva-pai-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-june-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-h-vasudeva-pai-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-june-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-h-vasudeva-pai-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-june-2004\",\"name\":\"B.H. Vasudeva Pai And Sons vs State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-06-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-04T10:33:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-h-vasudeva-pai-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-june-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-h-vasudeva-pai-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-june-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-h-vasudeva-pai-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-june-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"B.H. Vasudeva Pai And Sons vs State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"B.H. Vasudeva Pai And Sons vs State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2004 - 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\/b-h-vasudeva-pai-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-june-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"B.H. Vasudeva Pai And Sons vs State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-h-vasudeva-pai-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-june-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-06-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-04T10:33:48+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-h-vasudeva-pai-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-june-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-h-vasudeva-pai-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-june-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"B.H. Vasudeva Pai And Sons vs State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2004","datePublished":"2004-06-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-04T10:33:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-h-vasudeva-pai-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-june-2004"},"wordCount":2687,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-h-vasudeva-pai-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-june-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-h-vasudeva-pai-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-june-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-h-vasudeva-pai-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-june-2004","name":"B.H. Vasudeva Pai And Sons vs State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-06-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-04T10:33:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-h-vasudeva-pai-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-june-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-h-vasudeva-pai-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-june-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-h-vasudeva-pai-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-2-june-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"B.H. Vasudeva Pai And Sons vs State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2004"}]},{"@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\/191285","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=191285"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191285\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=191285"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=191285"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=191285"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}