{"id":199837,"date":"1963-01-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1963-01-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/firm-and-illuri-subbayya-chetty-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-january-1963"},"modified":"2016-04-22T03:11:24","modified_gmt":"2016-04-21T21:41:24","slug":"firm-and-illuri-subbayya-chetty-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-january-1963","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/firm-and-illuri-subbayya-chetty-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-january-1963","title":{"rendered":"Firm And Illuri Subbayya Chetty … vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 January, 1963"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Firm And Illuri Subbayya Chetty … vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 January, 1963<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 322, \t\t 1964 SCR (1) 752<\/div>\n
Author: P Gajendragadkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Gajendragadkar, P.B., Wanchoo, K.N., Hidayatullah, M., Shah, J.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nFIRM AND ILLURI SUBBAYYA CHETTY AND SONS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n25\/01\/1963\n\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1964 AIR  322\t\t  1964 SCR  (1) 752\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1964 SC 807\t (28)\n R\t    1964 SC1873\t (8,9)\n R\t    1965 SC1942\t (15,18,36)\n R\t    1966 SC 249\t (28,29,59,66,68)\n D\t    1966 SC1089\t (13,18)\n R\t    1966 SC1738\t (6)\n R\t    1968 SC 169\t (12)\n R\t    1968 SC 271\t (10)\n E\t    1969 SC  78\t (7,17,19,24,26,29,31,32)\n R\t    1971 SC1558\t (19)\n E\t    1975 SC2238\t (21)\n RF\t    1977 SC 955\t (15)\n\n\nACT:\nCivil Court--jurisdiction-Exclusion of-\"Any assessment\tmade\nunder this Act\" meaning of-Scope of-Madras General Sales Tax\nAct, 1939 (Mad. 9 of 1939), s. 18-A.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant\tfiled a suit against the  respondent  for  a\ndecree for Rs. 8339\/- on the ground that the said amount had\nbeen  illegally recovered from it under the  Madras  General\nSales Tax Act, 1939, for the years 1952-54.  The respondent\n 753\nresisted  the  claim  on  the  ground  that  the  suit\t was\nincompetent   under s. I 8-A of the Act.  On the merits,  it\nwas contended that the transactions in regard to  groundnuts\non  which  sales  tax  was levied  and\trecovered  from\t the\nappellant were transactions of purchase and not of sale, and\nit was urged that the appellant having voluntarily made\t the\nreturn and paid the taxes, it was not open to it to  contend\nthat  the  transactions\t were not  taxable  under  the\tAct.\nBesides\t it was argued that the appellant had not  preferred\nan  appeal either to the Deputy Commissioner  of  Commercial\nTaxes  or  to the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal\tagainst\t the\nassessments  and bence the suit was not\t maintainable.\t The\nsuit  was  decreed  by the trial court but  the\t High  Court\nreversed that decision and dismissed the suit on the  ground\nthat  in view of the provisions of s. 18-A of the  Act,\t the\nsuit was incompetent.  Alternatively. it was found on merits\nthat the claim made by the appellant was not justified.\t The\nappellant came to this Court by special leave.\nHeld, that s. 18-A excludes the jurisdiction of Civil Courts\nto  set aside or modify any assessment made under  the\tAct.\nThere  is  no express provision in the Act under  which\t the\nsuit  can be said to have been filed and it falls under\t the\nprohibition  contained in this section.\t The prohibition  is\nexpress and unambiguous and no suit can be entertained by  a\nCivil Court, if by instituting the suit. the plaintiff wants\nto  set aside or modify any assessment made under  the\tAct.\nWhere an order of assessment has been made by an appropriate\nauthority under the provisions of the Act, any challenge  to\nits correctness and any attempt either to have it set  aside\nor modified must be made before the appellate or  revisional\nforum  prescribed by the relevant provisions of the Act.   A\nsuit instituted for that purpose is barred under s. 18-A.\nWhen  the appellant made its voluntary returns and paid\t the\ntax  in advance to be adjusted at the end of the  year\tfrom\ntime  to  time,\t it treated the\t groundnut  transactions  as\ntaxable.    The\t appellant  having  conceded   the   taxable\ncharacter of the transactions in question, no occasion arose\nfor  the  taxing authorities to consider  whether  the\tsaid\ntransactions could be taxed or not.  Even after the impugned\norders of assessment were made, the appellant did not choose\nto  file an appeal and urge before the\tappellate  authority\nthat.  the transactions were sale transactions and  as\tsuch\nwere outside the purview of s. 5A (2).\tIf an order made  by\na taxing authority under the relevant provisions of the\t Act\nin  a case where the taxable character of a  transaction  is\ndisputed, is final and cannot be challenged in a civil court\nby a separate suit, the position is just\n754\nthe same where the taxable character of the transactions  is\nnot  even disputed by the dealer who accepts the  order\t for\nthe  purposes of the Act and then institutes a suit  to\t set\naside or modify it.\nThe expression \"any assessment made under this Act\" is\twide\nenough\tto  cover all assessments made\tby  the\t appropriate\nauthorities under this Act whether the said assessments\t arc\ncorrect or not.\t It is the activity of the assessing officer\nacting as such officer which is intended to be projected and\nas soon as it is shown that exercising his jurisdiction\t and\nauthority  under this Act, an assessing officer has made  an\norder of assessment, that clearly falls within the scope  of\ns.  18-A.  The fact that the order passed by  the  assessing\nauthority may in fact be incorrect or wrong does not  affect\nthe  position that in law the said order has been passed  by\nan appropriate authority and the assessment made by it\tmust\nbe  treated  as\t made under this Act.\tWhether\t or  not  an\nassessment  has been made under this Act will not depend  on\nthe  correctness  or  accuracy of the order  passed  by\t the\nassessing authority.\nThere  is a general presumption that there must be a  remedy\nin  the ordinary civil courts to a citizen claiming that  an\namount\thas  been recovered from him illegally\tand  such  a\nremedy\tcould  be held to be barred only on very  clear\t and\nunmistakable indications to the contrary.  The exclusion of\njurisdiction of civil courts to entertain civil causes\twill\nnot  be\t assumed  unless the relevant  statute\tcontains  an\nexpress provision to the effect or leads to a necessary\t and\ninevitable implication of that nature.\tThe mere fact that a\nspecial\t statute  provides for certain remedies may  not  by\nitself\tnecessarily  exclude the jurisdiction of  the  civil\ncourts\tto deal with a case brought before it in respect  of\nsome of the matters covered by the said statute.\nThere  is  no  justification for the assumption\t that  if  a\ndecision  has  been  made by a taxing  authority  under\t the\nprovisions  of\ta  taxing  statute,  its  validity  can\t  be\nchallenged  by a suit on the ground that it is incorrect  on\nmerits and as such it can be claimed that the provisions  of\nthe  said  statute  have  not  been  complied  with.\tNon-\ncompliance  with the provisions of the statute must be\tnon-\ncompliance  with such fundamental provisions of the  statute\nas would make the entire proceedings before the\t appropriate\nauthority   illegal   and  without  jurisdiction.    If\t  an\nappropriate   authority\t has  acted  in\t violation  of\t the\nfundamental principles of judicial procedure, that may\talso\ntend  to  make\tthe proceedings illegal and  void  and\tthat\ninfirmily may affect the validity of the order passed by the\nauthority in question.\tIt is cases of this character  where\nthe\n 755\ndefect\tor  infirmity in the order goes to the root  of\t the\norder  and  makes  it in law invalid  and  void\t that  these\nobservations  may perhaps be invoked in support of the\tplea\nthat   the  civil  court  can  exercise\t  its\tjurisdiction\nnotwithstanding a provision to the contrary contained in the\nrelevant statute.\nSecretary  of  State v. Mask & Co., (1940) 67 I.A.  222\t and\nReliegh Investment Co. Ltd. v. Governor General in 'Council,\n(1947) 74 I.A. 50, relied on.\nState of Andhra Pradesh v. Sri Krishna Coconut Co.<\/a> (1960)  1\nAndhra W.R. 279, overruled.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 315 of 1962.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nNovember  16,1960 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court  in\tA.S.
\nNo. 397 of 1957.\n<\/p>\n
A.   Ranganadham Chetty, A. Vedavalli and A. V. Rangam,\t for
\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n
D.Narasaraju,  Advocate-General for the State  of  Andhra
\nPradesh,   T.V.R.   Tatachari  and  P.D,  Xenon,   for\t the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
1963.  January 25.  The judgment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\nGAJENDRAGADKAR,\t J.-The short question which arises in\tthis
\nappeal is whether the suit instituted by the appellant, Firm
\nof  Illury  Subbayya  Chetty & Sons, in\t the  court  of\t the
\nSubordinate judge at Kurnool, seeking to recover Rs. 8,349\/-
\nfrom  the  respondent, the State of Andhra Pradesh,  on\t the
\nground\tthat  the said amount had been\tillegally  recovered
\nfrom  it under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939  (Mad.
\nIX of 1939) (hereinafter called the Act) for the years 1952-
\n54  is\tcompetent  or  not ; and this  question\t has  to  be
\ndetermined  in the light of the scope and effect of  section
\n18-A of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
756<\/span><\/p>\n
The appellant is a firm of merchants carrying on  commission
\nagency\tand  other  business  at Kurnool  and  as  such,  it
\npurchases and sells ground-nuts and other goods on behalf of
\nprinciples for commission.  For the year 1952-53 the  Sales-
\ntax authorities included in the appellant’s taxable turnover
\nan amount of Rs. 3,45,488\/12\/10 representing groundnut sales
\nand  collected\tthe  tax on the total turnover\tfrom  it  in
\nSeptember,  1953  when\tthe  amount  of\t the  said  tax\t was
\ndetermined  and\t duly adjusted.\t The said  turnover  of\t Rs.
\n3,45,488\/12\/10\tin fact represented sales of groundnuts\t and
\nnot  purchases and tax was recovered from the  appellant  on
\nthe said amount illegally inasmuch as it is only on purchase
\nof groundnuts that the tax is leviable.\t As a result of this
\nillegal\t levy, the’ appellant had to pay Rs.  5.398\/4\/3\t for
\nthe said year.\tSimilarly, for the subsequent year 1953-1954
\nthe appellant had to pay an illegal tax of Rs.\t1,159\/11\/,9.
\nIn its plaint, the appellant claimed to recover this  amount
\ntogether  with interest @ 12% per annum and that is how\t the
\nclaim was valued at Rs. 8,349\/-.\n<\/p>\n
This  claim was resisted by the respondent on  two  grounds.
\nIt was urged that the suit was incomepetent having regard to
\nthe  provisions of s. 18-A of the Act; and on the merits  it
\nwas alleged that the transactions in regard to groundnuts on
\nwhich  s lestax was levied and recovered from the  appellant
\nwere  transactions  of purchase and not of  sale.   In\tthis
\nconnection,  the  respondent referred to the fact  that\t the
\nappellant itself had included the transaction in question in
\nthe return submitted by it in form A and that it was  making
\npayments  tentatively every month to be adjusted  after\t the
\nfinal\tassessment  was\t made  at  the\tend  of\t the   year.
\nAccordingly, the final adjustment was made in September\t and
\nthe  total  amount due from the\t appellant  duly  recovered.
\nThus,  the appellant having voluntarily made the return\t and
\npaid the taxes, it was not open to him to
\n 757<\/span>
\ncontend\t that the transactions in regard to groundnuts\twere
\nnot  taxable under the Act.  Besides, the appellant had\t not
\npreferred  an  appeal either to the Deputy  Commissioner  of
\nCommercial  taxes or to the Sales Tax Appellate\t Tribunal  ;
\nand  so, it had not availed itself of -remedies provided  by
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
On  these pleadings, the trial Court framed three  principal
\nissues.\t The first issue was whether the suit was barred  by
\ns.  18-A of the Act; the second was whether there  had\tbeen
\nexcess collection of sales tax for the two years in question
\nand  if so, how much ? And the third issue was\twhether\t the
\nappellant was estopped from questioning the validity of\t the
\nassessment  ? According to the trial court,  the  respondent
\nhad failed to prove its pleas against the apppellant’s claim
\nand  so, it recorded findings in favour of the appellant  in
\nall  the three issues.\tIn the result, a decree followed  in
\nfavour of the appellant for the recovery of Rs. 6,558\/- with
\ninterest   6% per annum from November 12, 1955 till the date
\nof payment.\n<\/p>\n
This  decree was challenged by the respondent by  preferring
\nan  appeal  before  the High Court of  Andhra  Pradesh.\t  It
\nappeared  that\tthe decision of the said High Court  in\t the
\ncase of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Shri Krishna Cocoanut Co.<\/a>
\n(1),  was in favour of the view taken by the trial  Court  ;
\nbut the respondent urged before the High Court that the said
\ndecision  was erroneous in law and require  reconsideration.
\nThat is why the respondent’s appeal was placed before a Full
\nBench  of  the High Court.  The Pull Bench  has\t upheld\t the
\ncontentions  raised by the respondent. It has held  that  in
\nview  of the provisions of s. 18-A of the Act, the  suit  is
\nincompetent.   Alternatively,  it  has\tfound  that  on\t the
\nmerits,\t the claim made by the appellant was not  justified.
\nThe  result  of\t these findings was  that  the\trespondent’s
\nappeal was allowed and the appellant’s suit was dismissed
\n(1) (1960) 1 Andhra W.R.279.\n<\/p>\n
758<\/span><\/p>\n
with  costs.   The  appellant  had  filed   cross-objections
\nclaiming  additional  interest on the decretal\tamount,\t but
\nsince its suit was held to be incompetent by the High Court,
\nits  cross-objections failed and were dismissed with  costs.
\nit  is\tagainst this decree that the appellant has  come  to
\nthis Court by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  Ranganathan Chetty for the appellant contends that\t the
\nHigh Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that the
\nappellant’s suit was incompetent because he argues that\t the
\nHigh Court has misjudged.the effect of the provisions of  s.
\n18-A  In  dealing  With the  question  wether  civil  courts
\njurisdiction  to  entertain  suit is barred  or\t not  it  is
\nnecessary  to bear in mind the fact that there is a  general
\npresumption  that  there must be a remedy  in  the  ordinary
\ncivil  courts to a citizen claiming that an amount has\tbeen
\nrecovered  from him illegally and that such a remedy can  be
\nheld  to  be  barred only on  very  clear  and\tunmistakable
\nindications   to  the  contrary.   The\texclusion   of\t the
\njurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain civil causes\twill
\nnot  be\t assumed  unless the relevant  statute\tcontains  an
\nexpress\t provision to that effect, or leads to\ta  necessary
\nand  inevitable implication of that nature .The\t mere\tfact
\nthat a special statute provides for certain remedies may not
\nby  itself  necessarily exclude the jurisdiction  of  the  ,
\ncivil  courts  to  deal with a case  brought  before  it  in
\nrespect of some of the matters covered by the said statute.
\nIt   is,  therefore,necessary  to  enquire   whether   s.18-
\nAexpressly   or\t by  necessary\timplication   excludes\t the
\njurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a suit like the
\npresent.   Section  18-A  provides that\t no  suit  or  other
\nProceeding shall, except as expressly provided in this\tAct.
\nbe  instituted\tin  any Court to set  aside  or\t modify\t any
\nassessment  made under this Act.  It is common\tground\tthat
\nthere  is no express provision made in the Act\tunder  which
\nthe present
\n 759<\/span>
\nsuit can be said to have been filed, and so, it falls  under
\nthe prohibition contained in this section.  The\t prohibition
\nis  express and unambiguous and there can be no doubt  on  a
\nfair  construction  of\tthe section that a  suit  cannot  be
\nentertained  by a civil court if, by instituting  the  suit,
\nthe  plaintiff wants to set a side or modify any  assessment
\nmade  under this Act.  There is therefore, no difficulty  in
\nholding\t that this section excludes the jurisdiction of\t the
\ncivil courts in respect of the suits covered by it.
\nIt  is,\t however, urged by Mr. Chetty that if  an  order’,of
\nassessment  has\t been  made  illegally\tby  the\t appropriate
\nauthority  purporting to exercise its powers under the\tAct,
\nsuch  an assessment cannot be said to be an assessment\tmade
\nunder  this Act.  He contends that the words used  are\t“any
\nassessment  made  under this Act” and the section  does\t not
\ncover  cases of assessment which are purported to have\tbeen
\nmade  under  this Act.\tIn support of this argument  he\t has
\nreferred  us to the provisions of s. 17 (1) and s. 18  where
\nany  act  done or purporting to be done under  this  Act  is
\nreferred  to.\tIt would, however, be  noticed\tthat  having
\nregard to the subject-matter of the provisions contained  in
\nss.  17 (1) and 18 it was obviously necessary to  refer\t not
\nonly  to acts done, but also to acts purporting to  be\tdone
\nunder  this Act.  Section 17 (1) is intended to bar  certain
\nproceedings and s. 18 is intended to afford an indemnity and
\nthat  is  the reason why the legislature had  to  adopt\t the
\nusual  formula\tby referring to acts done or porting  to  be
\ndone.\tIt was wholly unnecessary purl to refer to cases  of
\nassessment purporting to have been made under this Act while
\nenacting  s. 18-A, because all assessments made\t under\tthis
\nAct would attract the provisions of s. 18-A and that is\t all
\nthat the legislature intends s. 18-A to cover.
\nThe expression “‘any assessment made under this Act” is,  in
\nour opinion, wide enough to coverall
\n760<\/span>
\nassessments  made by the appropriate authorities under\tthis
\nAct whether the said assessments are correct or not.  It  is
\nthe activity of the assessing officer acting as such officer
\nwhich is intended to be protected and as soon as it is shown
\nthat  exercising his jurisdiction and authority\t under\tthis
\nAct,  an assessing officer has made an order  of  assessment
\nthat clearly falls within the scope of s.18-A. The fact that
\nthe  order passed by the assessing authority may in fact  be
\nincorrect or wrong does not affect the position that in law,
\nthe  said order has been passed by an appropriate  authority
\nand the assessment made by it must be treated as made  under
\nthis Act.  Whether or not an assessment has been made  under
\nthis Act will not depend on the correctness or the  accuracy
\nof  the\t order\tpassed\tby  the\t assessing  authority.\t  In
\ndetermining  the applicability of s.18-A. the only  question
\nto consider is: “Is the assessment sought to be set aside or
\nmodified  by  the suit instituted an assessment\t made  under
\nthis  Act or not?” It would be extremely anomalous, to\thold
\nthat it is only an accurate and correct order of  assessment
\nwhich falls under s.18-A. Therefore, it seems to us that the
\norders of assessment challenged by the appellant in its suit
\nfall under s.18-A.\n<\/p>\n
In this connection, it is necessary to emphasise that  while
\nproviding  for\ta bar to suits in ordinary civil  courts  in
\nrespect\t of matters covered by s.18-A, the  legislature\t has
\ntaken  the precaution of safeguarding the ‘citizens’  rights
\nby providing for adequate alternative remedies.\t Section  11
\nof the Act provides for appeals to such authority as may  be
\nprescribed;  s.\t 12 confers revisional jurisdiction  on\t the
\nauthorities specified by it; s.12-A allows an appeal to\t the
\nappellate  Tribunal; s.12-B provides for a provision by\t the
\nHigh Court under the cases specified in it; s.12-C  provides
\nfor  an appeal to the.\tHigh Court; and s. I 2-D  lays\tdown
\nthat  petitions,  applications\tand appeals  to\t High  Court
\nshould be heard by a Bench of not
\n 761<\/span>
\nless  than  two judges.\t The matter can even be\t brought  to
\nthis  Court  by\t way of a petition under  Art.\t130  of\t the
\nConstitution.  It would thus be seen that and dealer who  is
\naggrieved by an order of assessment passed in respect of his
\ntransactions, can avail him self of the remedies provided in
\nthat  behalf  by these sections of the Act.  It\t is  in\t the
\nlight  of these elaborated alternative remedies provided  by
\nthe Act that the scope and effect of s.18-A must be  judged.
\nThus considered, there can be no doubt that where and  order
\nof assessment has been made by an appropriate authority\t the
\nprovisions of this Act, any challenge to its correctness and
\nany attempt either to have it set aside or modified must  be
\nmade before the appellate or the revisional forum prescribed
\nby  the relevant provisions of the Act.\t A  suit  instituted
\nfor that purpose would be barred under s. 18-A.
\nThe facts alleged by the appellant in this case are somewhat
\nunusual.  The appellant itself made voluntarly returns under
\nthe  relevant  provisions  of  the  Act\t and  included\t the
\ngroundnut  transactions\t as taxable  transactions.   It\t was
\nnever  alleged by the appellant that the  said\ttransactions
\nwere  transactions  of sale and as such, not  liable  to  be
\ntaxed  under  the  Act.\t  It  is  true\tthat  under  s.5A(2)
\ngroundnut  is  made liable to tax under s.3(1) only  at\t the
\npoint  of  the\tfirst purchase effected in the\tState  by  a
\ndealer who is not exempt from taxation under s. 3(3), but at
\nthe rate of 2% on his turnover.\t When the appellant made its
\nvoluntary returns and paid the tax in advance to be adjusted
\nat  the\t end of the year from time to time, it\ttreated\t the
\ngroundnut  transactions as taxable under s.5A(2).  In  other
\nwords,\tthe  appellant itself having  conceded\tthe  taxable
\ncharacter of the transactions in question, no occasion arose
\nfor  the  taxing  authority to\tconsider  whether  the\tsaid
\ntransactions  could  be\t taxed or not; and  even  after\t the
\nimpugned  orders of assessment were made, the appellant\t did
\nnot choose to file an appeal and urge
\n762<\/span>
\nbefore\tthe appellate authority that the  transactions\twere
\nsale  transactions and as such, were outside the purview  of
\ns.5A(2).   If  the  appellant  had  urged  that\t  the\tsaid
\ntransactions  were  outside the purview of the Act  and\t the
\ntaxing\tauthority  in the first instance had  rejected\tthat
\ncontention, there would be no doubt that the decision of the
\ntaxing authority would be final, subject, of course, to\t the
\nappeals and revisions provided for by the Act.\tThe position
\nof  the\t appellant cannot be any better because it  did\t not
\nraise  any  such contention in\tthe  assessment\t proceedings
\nunder  the Act.\t If the order made by the  taxing  authority
\nunder the relevant provisions of the Act in a case where the
\ntaxable\t character of the transaction is disputed  is  final
\nand  cannot  be challenged in a civil court  by\t a  separate
\nsuit, the position would be just the same where the  taxable
\ncharacter  of  the transaction is not even disputed  by\t the
\ndealer who accepts the order for the purpose of the Act\t and
\nthen institutes a suit to set it aside or to modify it.
\nThe question about the exclusion of the jurisdiction of\t the
\ncivil  courts  to  entertain  civil  actions  by  virtue  of
\nspecific  provisions contained in special statutes has\tbeen
\njudicially considered on several occasions.  We may in\tthis
\nconnection refer to two decisions of the Privy Council.\t  In
\nSecretary  of State v. Mask. & Coy., (1) the  Privy  Council
\nwas  dealing with the effect of the provisions contained  in
\ns. 188 of the Sea Customs Act (VIII of 1878).  The  relevant
\nportion of the said section provides that every order passed
\nin appeal under this section shall, subject to the power ‘of
\nrevision  conferred by s. 191, be final.  Dealing  with\t the
\nquestion  about\t the  effect of this  provisions  the  Privy
\nCouncil\t observed that it is settled law that the  exclusion
\nof the jurisdiction of the civil courts is not to be readily
\ninferred, but that such exclusion must either be  explicitly
\nexpressed or clearly implied.  Lord Thankerton who delivered
\nthe opinion of the Board, however, proceeded to add that
\n(1)  (1940) 67 I.A. 222,236,
\n 763<\/span>
\n“it  is also well-settled that that even if jurisdiction  is
\nso  excluded, the civil courts have jurisdiction to  examine
\ninto  cases  where the provisions of the Act have  not\tbeen
\ncomplied  with, or the statutory tribunal has not  acted  in
\nconformity  with  the  fundamental  principles\tof  judicial
\nprocedure.” It is necessary to add that these  observations,
\nthough\tmade  in  somewhat wide terms, do  not\tjustify\t the
\nassumption  that  if a decision has been made  by  a  taxing
\nauthority  under  the  provisions  of  the  relevant  taxing
\nstatute,  its  validity can be challenged by a suit  on\t the
\nground\tthat it is incorrect on the merits and as  such,  it
\ncan be claimed that the provisions of the said statute\thave
\nnot been complied with.\t Non-compliance with the  provisions
\nof  the\t statute  to which reference is made  by  the  Privy
\nCouncil\t  must,\t we  think,  be\t non-compliance\t with\tsuch
\nfundamental  provisions\t of the statute as  would  make\t the
\nentire proceedings before the appropriate authority  illegal
\nand  without  jurisdiction.  Similarly,\t if  an\t appropriate
\nauthority   has\t acted\tin  violation  of  the\t fundamental
\nprinciples of judicial procedure, that may also tend to make
\nthe  proceedings  illegal and void and\tthis  infirmity\t may
\naffect the validity of the order passed by the authority  in
\nquestion.  It is cases of this character where the defect or
\nthe infirmity in the order goes to the root of the order and
\nmakes it in law invalid and void that these observations may
\nperhaps\t be  invoked in support of the plea that  the  civil
\ncourt  can  exercise  its  jurisdiction\t notwithstanding   a
\nprovision to the contrary contained in the relevant statute.
\nIn  what cases such a plea would succeed it  is\t unnecessary
\nfor  us to decide in the present appeal because we  have  no
\ndoubt  that  the  contention of the appellant  that  on\t the
\nmerits,\t the decision of the assessing authority was  wrong,
\ncannot\tbe  the\t subject-matter of a suit  because  s.\t18-A
\nclearly bars such a claim in the civil courts.
\nThe  next  decision  to\t which reference  may  be  made\t was
\npronounced by the Privy Council in the
\n764<\/span>
\ncase of Releigh Investment Coy.\t Ltd. v. GovernorGeneral  in
\nCouncil (1).  In that case the effect of s. 67 of the Indian
\nIncome-tax  Act\t fell to be considered.\t The  said  section,
\ninter  alia, provides that no suit shall be brought  in\t any
\ncivil court to set aside or modify any assessment made under
\nthis  Act.  It would be noticed that the words used in\tthis
\nsection\t are  exactly similar to the words used in  s.\t18-A
\nwith  which we are concerned.  In determining the effect  of
\ns. 67, the Privy Council considered the scheme of the Act by
\nparticular  reference to the machinery provided by  the\t Act
\nwhich enables an assessee effectively to raise in courts the
\nquestion  whether a particular provision of  the  Income-tax
\nAct bearing on the assessment made is or is not ultra-vires.
\nThe presence of such machinery observed the judgment, though
\nby no means conclusive, marches with a construction ‘of\t the
\nsection which denies an alternative jurisdiction to  enquire
\ninto the same subject-matter.  It is true that the  judgment
\nshows  that  the Privy Council took the view that  even\t the
\nconstitutional\tvalidity  of  the taxing  provision  can  be
\nchallenged  by\tadopting  the procedure\t prescribed  by\t the
\nIncome-tax Act; and this assumption presumably proceeded  on
\nthe  basis that if an assessee wants to challenge the  vires
\nof the taxing provision on which an assessment is  purported
\nto  be\tmade against him, it would be open to him  to  raise
\nthat  point  before the taxing authority and take it  for  a
\ndecision before the High Court under s. 66 (1) of the  Act.’
\nIt  is not necessary for us to consider whether this  assum-
\nption  is  well\t founded or not.  But the  presence  of\t the
\nalternative  machinery by way of appeals which a  particular
\nstatute\t provides  to a party aggrieved\t by  the  assessment
\norder  on the merits, is a relevant consideration  and\tthat
\nconsideration  is  satisfied by the Act with  which  we\t are
\nconcerned in the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
The clause “assessment made under this Ace’ which occurs  in
\ns. 18-A. also occurs in s. 67 with
\n(1)(1947) 74 I.A. 50, 68.\n<\/p>\n
 765<\/span><\/p>\n
which the privy Council was concerned, and in construing the
\nsaid  clause,  the Privy Council observed that\t“the  phrase
\n“made  under  this  Act” describes  the\t provenance  of\t the
\nassessment : it does not relate to its accuracy in point  of
\nlaw.  The use of the machinery provided by the Act, not\t the
\nresult of that use, is the test ” These two Privy  Council’s
\ndecisions  support the conclusion that having regard to\t the
\nscheme\tof  the Act, s. 18-A must be deemed to\texclude\t the
\njurisdiction  of civil courts to entertain claims  like\t the
\npresent.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, we must hold that the view taken by the\tHigh
\nCourt  is right and so, the appeal fails and  is  dismissed.
\nThere would be no order as to
\n\t\t\t\t  Appeal dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Firm And Illuri Subbayya Chetty … vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 January, 1963 Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 322, 1964 SCR (1) 752 Author: P Gajendragadkar Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Gajendragadkar, P.B., Wanchoo, K.N., Hidayatullah, M., Shah, J.C. PETITIONER: FIRM AND ILLURI SUBBAYYA CHETTY AND SONS Vs. RESPONDENT: 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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-199837","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nFirm And Illuri Subbayya Chetty ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 January, 1963 - 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\/firm-and-illuri-subbayya-chetty-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-january-1963\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Firm And Illuri Subbayya Chetty ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 January, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/firm-and-illuri-subbayya-chetty-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-january-1963\" \/>\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=\"1963-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-21T21:41:24+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/firm-and-illuri-subbayya-chetty-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-january-1963#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/firm-and-illuri-subbayya-chetty-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-january-1963\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Firm And Illuri Subbayya Chetty … vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 January, 1963\",\"datePublished\":\"1963-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-21T21:41:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/firm-and-illuri-subbayya-chetty-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-january-1963\"},\"wordCount\":3436,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/firm-and-illuri-subbayya-chetty-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-january-1963#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/firm-and-illuri-subbayya-chetty-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-january-1963\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/firm-and-illuri-subbayya-chetty-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-january-1963\",\"name\":\"Firm And Illuri Subbayya Chetty ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 January, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1963-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-21T21:41:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/firm-and-illuri-subbayya-chetty-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-january-1963#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/firm-and-illuri-subbayya-chetty-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-january-1963\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/firm-and-illuri-subbayya-chetty-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-january-1963#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Firm And Illuri Subbayya Chetty … vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 January, 1963\"}]},{\"@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":"Firm And Illuri Subbayya Chetty ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 January, 1963 - 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\/firm-and-illuri-subbayya-chetty-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-january-1963","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Firm And Illuri Subbayya Chetty ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 January, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/firm-and-illuri-subbayya-chetty-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-january-1963","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1963-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-21T21:41:24+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/firm-and-illuri-subbayya-chetty-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-january-1963#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/firm-and-illuri-subbayya-chetty-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-january-1963"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Firm And Illuri Subbayya Chetty … vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 January, 1963","datePublished":"1963-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-21T21:41:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/firm-and-illuri-subbayya-chetty-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-january-1963"},"wordCount":3436,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/firm-and-illuri-subbayya-chetty-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-january-1963#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/firm-and-illuri-subbayya-chetty-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-january-1963","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/firm-and-illuri-subbayya-chetty-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-january-1963","name":"Firm And Illuri Subbayya Chetty ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 January, 1963 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1963-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-21T21:41:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/firm-and-illuri-subbayya-chetty-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-january-1963#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/firm-and-illuri-subbayya-chetty-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-january-1963"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/firm-and-illuri-subbayya-chetty-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-25-january-1963#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Firm And Illuri Subbayya Chetty … vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 January, 1963"}]},{"@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\/199837","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=199837"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199837\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=199837"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=199837"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=199837"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}