{"id":195917,"date":"2007-07-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-07-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-highway-contractors-vs-sales-tax-officer-on-26-july-2007"},"modified":"2015-10-31T12:25:55","modified_gmt":"2015-10-31T06:55:55","slug":"ms-highway-contractors-vs-sales-tax-officer-on-26-july-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-highway-contractors-vs-sales-tax-officer-on-26-july-2007","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Highway Contractors vs Sales Tax Officer on 26 July, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S. Highway Contractors vs Sales Tax Officer on 26 July, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWA No. 2348 of 2002(E)\n\n\n1. M\/S. HIGHWAY CONTRACTORS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SALES TAX OFFICER,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,\n\n3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,\n\n4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R),\n\n5. THE STATE OF KERALA,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.KUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN\n\n Dated :26\/07\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                            H.L.DATTU, C.J.   &   K.T.SANKARAN, J.\n\n                                  ------------------------------------------\n\n                                                W.A.No.2348 of 2002\n\n                                    ------------------------------------------\n\n                           Dated, this the   26th    day of July,  2007\n\n\n                                           JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
H.L.Dattu, C.J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge<\/p>\n
in O.P.No.37501 of 2001 dated 10th July, 2002.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        (2)  In the writ petition,  the assessee  had called in question the orders<\/p>\n
passed by the Sales Tax Officer  imposing  penalty  under  Section  10A of the<\/p>\n
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (‘Act’ for short).   The learned Single Judge has<\/p>\n
rejected the writ petition filed by the assessee.   That is how the assessee is<\/p>\n
before us in this writ appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        (3)   The   facts   in   brief   are:   The   assessee   is   a   dealer   registered   both<\/p>\n
under   the   provisions   of   the   Kerala   General   Sales   Tax   Act   and   the   Central<\/p>\n
Sales Tax Act.  The assessee is a contractor.  The assessee had gone before<\/p>\n
the registering authority for issuance of registration certificate.  The assessing<\/p>\n
authority\/competent   authority   had   granted   the   registration   certificate   to   the<\/p>\n
assessee.   In the registration certificate it was made clear that the assessee<\/p>\n
can effect inter state purchase of goods for the purpose of resale.<\/p>\n
        (4) The Sales Tax Officer being of the opinion that the assessee has<\/p>\n
misused the C Forms, had initiated proceedings under Section 10A of the Act<\/p>\n
for imposition of penalty.   In the show cause notice issued on 9.11.1998, the<\/p>\n
Sales Tax Officer had stated as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                 “Please   take   notice   that   on   verification   of   the     C   Form<\/p>\n
         issue register and counter foils of C Forms it is noticed that you<\/p>\n
         have   effected   purchase   of   goods   like   machinery,   machinery<\/p>\n
         spares etc., which are not been transferred for the execution of<\/p>\n
         the works contract.  The details are as under.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                    xxx                            xxx                              xxx<\/p>\n
W.A.No.2348\/2002                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
                   As   you   are   a   Works   Contractor   and   the   registration<\/p>\n
          under   the   KGST   Act   and   CST   Act   was   granted   accordingly,<\/p>\n
          you are not a manufacturer.    Therefore  you are not entitled to<\/p>\n
          the facility of   using    C Forms  for  the  purchases  of   machinery,<\/p>\n
          parts, Motor Parts etc., as mentioned earlier, as provided under<\/p>\n
          section  8(3) of  the  CST  Act  1956.    As  you   have issued  the C<\/p>\n
          forms you are liable for penal action as provided Under Section<\/p>\n
          10A for violation of Section 8(3).  Total amount of the purchase<\/p>\n
          comes to Rs.180,25,936\/-.  It is therefore proposed to impose a<\/p>\n
          penalty of Rs.27,03,890\/- being 15% of the tax due on the value<\/p>\n
          of the goods.  Your objection if any against the proposal may be<\/p>\n
          filed at 11 AM on 17.11.98 in my office at Ernakulam.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (5) After the receipt  of the said show cause notice, the assessee   had<\/p>\n
filed his detailed reply, inter alia, bringing to the notice of the Sales Tax Officer<\/p>\n
that   the   assessee   was   under   the   bona   fide   impression   that   he   is   entitled   to<\/p>\n
issue C Forms.  The assessee also had relied upon the observations made by<\/p>\n
the   apex   Court   in   the   case   of  Builders   Association   of   India   and   others  v.<\/p>\n
Union of India and others  [(1989) 73 STC 370].   The material portion of the<\/p>\n
objections filed by the assessee is  as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                  “We   have   mainly   undertaking   Re   surfacing   of   the   road<\/p>\n
         and   airport   runway.      We   are   using   furnace   oil,   bitumin,   metal<\/p>\n
         and we are mixing the same in the plant.   We  have purchased<\/p>\n
         Pavor   Finisher,   Drum   Mix   Plant   from   M\/s.Gujarat   Appolo<\/p>\n
         Equipments   Ltd.   and   Asphalt   Pavor   Finisher   from   M\/s.   Appolo<\/p>\n
         Industries (P) Ltd. and Batching Plant from M\/s.Bhai Sundardas<\/p>\n
         etc, being the plant for this purpose.   We  are informed that we<\/p>\n
         could   buy   this   machinery   by   issue   of   C   Form   since   these<\/p>\n
         machineries   are   used   for   mixing\/manufacturing   of   ‘mix’.     The<\/p>\n
         Board   in   their   Circular   No.20\/93   (Tax)   dated   13\/8\/93   directed<\/p>\n
         that   C Form may be issued for works contractors.  By a fiction<\/p>\n
         of   law   the   works   contract   is   divided   in   to   sale   of   goods   and<\/p>\n
         labour   charges   and   as   such   after   the   46th  amendment   the<\/p>\n
         materials   used   in  the   execution   of   contract   is  deemed   to   be   a<\/p>\n
         sale.  Supreme Court in Builders Association case (73 STC 370)<\/p>\n
         and   the   subsequent   decisions,   the   position   has   been   made<\/p>\n
         abundantly clear that by fiction of law the works contract stands<\/p>\n
         the same hutting as that of any other dealer.  The Judgment of<\/p>\n
         Supreme   Court   in   73   STC   on   31.3.89.     We   were   under   the<\/p>\n
W.A.No.2348\/2002                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
        bonafide   impression   that   we   are   entitled   to   issue   of   C   Form<\/p>\n
        since   we  have  followed   the   decision  under   the   CST   Act.     The<\/p>\n
        Board has issued circular on 2.1.97.  In Para 13, the Board has<\/p>\n
        given   a   direction   that   C   Forms   cannot   be   issued   for   the<\/p>\n
        purchase   of   machinery.     We   may   submit   that   we   have<\/p>\n
        purchased the issued C Form before 2.1.97.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                 We  may further submit that we have not issued C Form<\/p>\n
        for purchase after 2.1.97.   This also confirms bonafide and our<\/p>\n
        information   that   we   could   issue   C   Form   for   purchase   of<\/p>\n
        machinery.  Infact we have produced C Form register before the<\/p>\n
        Officer previously and we put his signature in the register.   We<\/p>\n
        have issued C Form only after oral permission and clarification<\/p>\n
        from Sales Tax Officer at the time of issue.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                 We may also submit that in all these cases we have paid<\/p>\n
        4%   tax   on   the   purchases.     Moreover   out   of   the   purchase   the<\/p>\n
        following materials are purchased and used in the contract.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (6)   The   Sales   Tax   Officer   after   considering   the   objections   filed   by   the<\/p>\n
assessee   has   proceeded   to   pass   an   order   imposing     penalty   in   a   sum   of<\/p>\n
Rs.25,65,665\/- by his order dated  30.1.1999.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        (7)     The   first   revisional   authority   modified   the   penalty   imposed   by   the<\/p>\n
Sales Tax Officer by reducing it to a sum of Rs.10,26,300\/- by its order dated<\/p>\n
4.6.1999.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        (8) The said order was questioned by the assessee before the second<\/p>\n
revisional authority.    However, he  was unsuccessful before  the  said authority.<\/p>\n
That is how the assessee was before this Court in O.P.No.37501 of 2001.  The<\/p>\n
learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition and that is how the assessee<\/p>\n
is before us in this writ appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        (9)     We   have   heard   Sri.A.Kumar,   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the<\/p>\n
assessee   and   Sri.Mohammed   Rafiq,   learned   Senior   Government   Pleader<\/p>\n
appearing for the Revenue.    Both the learned counsel have taken us through<\/p>\n
several decisions of the various High Courts and also the Supreme Court.  We<\/p>\n
W.A.No.2348\/2002                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
do not intend to refer to all those decisions, since we intend to remand the<\/p>\n
matter to the Sales Tax Officer to reconsider the whole issue once over again.<\/p>\n
         (10)  Admittedly, a show cause notice had been issued to the assessee<\/p>\n
by the Sales Tax Officer before imposing penalty under Section 10A of the Act.<\/p>\n
The  assessee  had  filed  his  detailed  objections  and in  that  he had specifically<\/p>\n
stated that the assessee was under the bona fide belief that he could issue C<\/p>\n
Forms for effecting inter state purchase of the machinery and building materials<\/p>\n
for the purpose of  utilising the same in execution of the works  contract.   This<\/p>\n
reasonable excuse offered by the assessee should have been taken note of by<\/p>\n
the Sales Tax Officer and should have adverted to that aspect of the matter one<\/p>\n
way or the other.    For imposing  any penalty under clause (a),  (b), (c)  and (d)<\/p>\n
the guilty intention to evade tax is an essential ingredient of the offence.   It is<\/p>\n
the case of the learned counsel for the department that the offence made out<\/p>\n
by the assessing authority would fall under clause (d) of Section 10 of the Act.<\/p>\n
In   this   clause,   the   Parliament   has   used   the   expression   “without   reasonable<\/p>\n
cause”,   that   only   implies   blameworthy   conduct   is   an   essential  requirement   of<\/p>\n
the offence to fall under this clause.   This fact has to be proved by the Sales<\/p>\n
Tax   Officer   and   the   authority   has   to   record   a   finding   thereon.     This   has   not<\/p>\n
been done  by the  Sales Tax  Officer.    That  only shows that  there   is  total  non<\/p>\n
application of mind by the Sales Tax Officer.  Therefore, we cannot sustain the<\/p>\n
order passed by the Sales Tax Officer dated 30.1.1999.<\/p>\n
         (11)  The aforesaid aspect of the matter should have been taken note of<\/p>\n
by   the   hierarchy   of   officers   before   whom   the   assessee   had   filed   revision<\/p>\n
petitions.     Even   those   revisional   authorities   have   not   noticed   the   specific<\/p>\n
contention canvassed by the assessee in so far as the bona  fide      impression<\/p>\n
W.A.No.2348\/2002                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
that  the  assessee  was entertaining   while effecting  inter   state  purchase of  the<\/p>\n
machinery   and   building   materials   for   the   purpose   of   execution   of   the   works<\/p>\n
contract.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         (12)       In   view   of   that   even     those   orders   passed   by   the   hierarchy   of<\/p>\n
officers   before whom the revisions were filed by the assessee cannot also be<\/p>\n
sustained.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         (13)       Lastly,   the   learned   Single   Judge   ought   to   have  appreciated   the<\/p>\n
aforesaid contentions canvassed by the assessee.   But the learned Judge has<\/p>\n
indicated in the order that in a case of this nature no mens rea is need not be<\/p>\n
proved  by the Sales Tax Officer.   That view of the learned Single Judge may<\/p>\n
not   be   correct   in   view   of   the   decisions   of   the   apex   Court   in   the   cases   of<\/p>\n
Hindustan   Steel   Limited  v.  State   of   Orissa<\/a>  [(1970)   25   STC   211]     and<\/p>\n
Cement   Marketing   Co.   of   India   Limited  v.  Assistant   Commissioner   of<\/p>\n
Sales Tax<\/a> [(1980) 45 STC 197].\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         (14)  Accordingly, the following:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                               Order<\/p>\n
         i) The writ appeal is allowed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         ii)   The   order   passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   in  O.P.No.37501   of<\/p>\n
2001 dated 10th July, 2002 is set aside.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         iii)   The   orders   passed   by   the   Sales   Tax   Officer   and   confirmed   by   the<\/p>\n
revisional authorities  are also set aside and the matter is remanded back to the<\/p>\n
Sales Tax Officer to redo the matter in accordance with law after affording  an<\/p>\n
opportunity of hearing to the assessee.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         iv)  The assessee is also at liberty to take up all such contentions which<\/p>\n
are       available     to   him   including   certain   contentions   canvassed   before   this<\/p>\n
W.A.No.2348\/2002                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            Consequently, C.M.P.No.6176 of 2002 is dismissed.<\/p>\n
            Ordered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                                            (H.L.DATTU)<\/p>\n
                                                                           CHIEF JUSTICE<\/p>\n
                                                                        (K.T.SANKARAN)<\/p>\n
                                                                               JUDGE<\/p>\n
vns\/DK<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M\/S. Highway Contractors vs Sales Tax Officer on 26 July, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WA No. 2348 of 2002(E) 1. M\/S. HIGHWAY CONTRACTORS, … Petitioner Vs 1. SALES TAX OFFICER, … Respondent 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, 4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R), 5. THE […]<\/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-195917","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Highway Contractors vs Sales Tax Officer on 26 July, 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\/ms-highway-contractors-vs-sales-tax-officer-on-26-july-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Highway Contractors vs Sales Tax Officer on 26 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-highway-contractors-vs-sales-tax-officer-on-26-july-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=\"2007-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-31T06:55:55+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\\\/ms-highway-contractors-vs-sales-tax-officer-on-26-july-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-highway-contractors-vs-sales-tax-officer-on-26-july-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Highway Contractors vs Sales Tax Officer on 26 July, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-31T06:55:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-highway-contractors-vs-sales-tax-officer-on-26-july-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1623,\"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\\\/ms-highway-contractors-vs-sales-tax-officer-on-26-july-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-highway-contractors-vs-sales-tax-officer-on-26-july-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-highway-contractors-vs-sales-tax-officer-on-26-july-2007\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Highway Contractors vs Sales Tax Officer on 26 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-31T06:55:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-highway-contractors-vs-sales-tax-officer-on-26-july-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-highway-contractors-vs-sales-tax-officer-on-26-july-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-highway-contractors-vs-sales-tax-officer-on-26-july-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Highway Contractors vs Sales Tax Officer on 26 July, 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":"M\/S. Highway Contractors vs Sales Tax Officer on 26 July, 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\/ms-highway-contractors-vs-sales-tax-officer-on-26-july-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Highway Contractors vs Sales Tax Officer on 26 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-highway-contractors-vs-sales-tax-officer-on-26-july-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-31T06:55:55+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\/ms-highway-contractors-vs-sales-tax-officer-on-26-july-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-highway-contractors-vs-sales-tax-officer-on-26-july-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Highway Contractors vs Sales Tax Officer on 26 July, 2007","datePublished":"2007-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-31T06:55:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-highway-contractors-vs-sales-tax-officer-on-26-july-2007"},"wordCount":1623,"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\/ms-highway-contractors-vs-sales-tax-officer-on-26-july-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-highway-contractors-vs-sales-tax-officer-on-26-july-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-highway-contractors-vs-sales-tax-officer-on-26-july-2007","name":"M\/S. Highway Contractors vs Sales Tax Officer on 26 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-31T06:55:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-highway-contractors-vs-sales-tax-officer-on-26-july-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-highway-contractors-vs-sales-tax-officer-on-26-july-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-highway-contractors-vs-sales-tax-officer-on-26-july-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Highway Contractors vs Sales Tax Officer on 26 July, 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\/195917","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=195917"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195917\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=195917"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=195917"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=195917"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}