{"id":200949,"date":"2010-03-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/master-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010"},"modified":"2016-02-19T11:38:10","modified_gmt":"2016-02-19T06:08:10","slug":"master-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/master-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Master vs Unknown on 18 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Master vs Unknown on 18 March, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: D.A.Mehta,&Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/2517\/2009\t 8\/ 8\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 2517 of 2009\n \n\n \n \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\nMASTER\nENTERPRISE - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nASSISTANT\nCOMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES & 1 - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nNC SHUKLA for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nNone for Opponent(s) : 1, \nNOTICE SERVED for\nOpponent(s) : 1.2.1,1.2.2  \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 18\/03\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI)<\/p>\n
\t In
\n\tthis appeal under section 78 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act,
\n\t2003 (the Act), the appellant-assessee has proposed the following
\n\tquestions stated to arise out of the impugned order dated 1st
\n\tMay 2009 made by the Gujarat Value Added Tax Tribunal (the
\n\tTribunal):\n<\/p>\n
 [1]\tWhether
\non facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the
\nHonourable Gujarat Value Added Tribunal is proper and legal in as far
\nas it has remanded the matter to the learned first appellate
\nauthority to decide the question of limitation instead of deciding
\nthe same by itself as the facts were on record?\n<\/p>\n
[2]
\nWhether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of
\nthe Honourable Gujarat Value Added Tribunal is proper and legal in as
\nfar as it has not followed its own decision in the cases of
\nMaheshkumar & Co. – 2007 GSTB 180 and Harsh Cars   2004 GSTB
\n565 ?\n<\/p>\n
[3]
\nWhether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of
\nthe Honourable Gujarat Value Added Tribunal is proper and legal in as
\nfar as it has not considered the issue regarding non-application of
\nmind by the learned assessing authority and taking decision under the
\ninfluence of pre-audit authority?\n<\/p>\n
[4]
\nWhether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of
\nthe Honourable Gujarat Value Added Tribunal is proper and legal in as
\nfar as it has not decided the issue regarding burden of proof and has
\nremanded the matter to the learned first appellate authority to grant
\ndepartment second innings?\n<\/p>\n
[5]
\nWhether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of
\nthe Honourable Gujarat Value Added Tribunal is proper and legal in as
\nfar as it has not appreciated various judicial pronouncements
\nregarding burden of proof and loss to the bonafide purchaser?\n<\/p>\n
[6]
\nWhether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of
\nthe Honourable Gujarat Value Added Tribunal is proper and legal in as
\nfar as it has not applied the principle that order is to be judged on
\nits own and not on the basis of reasoning supplied thereafter?\n<\/p>\n
\t The
\n\tappellant is a registered dealer under the Gujarat Sales Tax Act,
\n\t1969 and is engaged in the business of re-selling castor oil,
\n\tgrocery and kirana items. Vide order dated 30th March,
\n\t2007 the appellant was assessed for the period 1997-98. The
\n\tassessee’s claim for a sum of Rs.5,31,414\/- by way of set off, came
\n\tto be rejected by the Assessing Officer under Rule 44 of the Gujarat
\n\tSales Tax Rules, 1970 (the Rules). The assessee carried the matter
\n\tin appeal before Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeals),
\n\t(hereinafter referred to as the first appellate authority) who vide
\n\torder dated 31st May 2008, did not consider the
\n\tcontention regarding limitation raised by the appellant and rejected
\n\tthe appeal on the ground that the appellant was not entitled to set
\n\toff under Rule 44. The appellant carried the matter in second appeal
\n\tbefore the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide the impugned order allowed
\n\tthe appeal and set aside the order passed by the first appellate
\n\tauthority. On the aspect of limitation, the Tribunal after observing
\n\tthat the Assessing Officer should have inquired, did not record any
\n\tfinding.  The Tribunal, however, remanded the matter to the first
\n\tappellate authority for fresh consideration and decision on merits
\n\tin light of the discussion in the judgment, after giving opportunity
\n\tof hearing to the appellant.  Being aggrieved, the appellant has
\n\tpreferred the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t  Mr.\n<\/p>\n
\tN. C. Shukla, learned advocate for the appellant has vehemently
\n\tassailed the impugned order of the Tribunal. It is submitted that
\n\tthe Tribunal was required to consider the two principal contentions
\n\traised before it, namely, the contention regarding delay in
\n\tfinalizing the assessment as well as regarding disallowance of set
\n\toff of a sum of Rs.5,31,414\/-. It is submitted that the question of
\n\tlimitation was raised before the first appellate authority, however,
\n\tthe first appellate authority had not chosen to decide the said
\n\tissue. That the Tribunal instead of deciding the issue of limitation
\n\ton merits had remanded the matter to the first appellate authority.
\n\tIt is submitted that when the first appellate authority had not
\n\tthought it fit to go into the question of limitation, the Tribunal
\n\twas not justified in remanding the matter to the said authority for
\n\tverifying the record and to decide as to whether the assessment had
\n\tbeen finalized within a reasonable time or not.\n<\/p>\n
\t On
\n\tmerits of the case, the learned advocate has submitted that the
\n\tappellant had claimed set off under Rule 44 of the Rules which was
\n\tin accordance with the provisions of law. The only issue was that
\n\tthe appellant had not produced any proof regarding the payment of
\n\ttax by the vendors. It is submitted that despite the fact that the
\n\tTribunal had accepted the contention that it is not the duty of the
\n\tpurchaser to produce proof regarding payment of tax by the vendor,
\n\tit had remanded the matter to the first appellate authority. It is,
\n\taccordingly, submitted that in the circumstances, the impugned order
\n\tof the Tribunal suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and
\n\tas such, substantial questions, as proposed, arise out of the
\n\timpugned order of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
\t As
\n\tcan be seen from the impugned order of the Tribunal, the appellant
\n\thad challenged the assessment proceedings on two grounds. Firstly,
\n\ton the ground that the assessment had been finalized after nine
\n\tyears, which accordingly to the appellant could not be said to have
\n\tbeen made within a reasonable period, and secondly, on the ground
\n\tthat the set off under Rule 44 of the Rules could not have been
\n\tdisallowed on the ground that the appellant purchaser could not
\n\tproduce evidence regarding payment of tax in the treasury by the
\n\tvendors.\n<\/p>\n
\t The
\n\tTribunal has observed that for the assessment year 1.4.1997 to
\n\t31.3.1998, no limitation had been prescribed for the purpose of
\n\tfinalization of assessment. However, with effect from 1st
\n\tApril 1998, the period of limitation has been prescribed under
\n\tsection 42 of the Act. The Tribunal was of the view that considering
\n\tthe period of limitation prescribed under section 42 of the Act, a
\n\treasonable period for finalization of assessment for the year
\n\t1997-98 could be said to be on or before 31st March 2003,
\n\twhereas in the present case, the assessment was finalized after nine
\n\tyears. The Tribunal, however, observed that there was no material on
\n\trecord to indicate as to why the assessment had been delayed. The
\n\tTribunal noted that the question of limitation had not been raised
\n\tbefore the Assessing Officer; however, it expressed the view that
\n\tlimitation being a question of law could be raised at any point of
\n\ttime. In the background of the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal was of
\n\tthe view that the first appellate authority could verify the record
\n\tand find out as to whether the delay had been occasioned due to any
\n\tdefault on the part of the assessee and then, to decide as to
\n\twhether the assessment had been finalized within a reasonable period
\n\tof time.\n<\/p>\n
\t As
\n\tregards the second contention, based upon its earlier decision, the
\n\tTribunal was of the view that once the dealer had produced Form
\n\tNo.40, no further proof of payment of tax in the treasury could be
\n\tinsisted upon from the dealer; that it was for the Department to
\n\tinquire whether tax was paid in the treasury or not. That on
\n\tinquiry, if there is material on record to indicate non-payment of
\n\ttax in the treasury; the Department could reject the claim. The
\n\tTribunal, therefore, thought it fit to remand the matter to the
\n\tfirst appellate authority to inquire as to whether the vendor had
\n\tpaid tax in the treasury or not.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\trecord of the case indicates that neither the Assessing Officer nor
\n\tthe first appellate authority have recorded any findings of fact as
\n\tregards whether the assessment had been finalized within a
\n\treasonable time as well as, as regards whether the vendor had paid
\n\ttax in the treasury as declared in Form No.40 against which the
\n\tgoods were purchased by the appellant. For the period 1.4.1997 to
\n\t31.3.1998 no limitation had been prescribed for the purpose of
\n\tfinalization of assessment. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in
\n\tholding that in absence of any statutory period of limitation, the
\n\tassessment should have been finalized within a reasonable period of
\n\ttime. As to what is a reasonable period would depend on the facts
\n\tand circumstances of each case. In the circumstances, the Tribunal
\n\tthought it fit to remand the matter for the purpose of ascertaining
\n\twhether the appellant assessee was in any manner responsible for the
\n\tdelay caused in finalization of the assessment. If in absence of any
\n\tmaterial on record so as to indicate the cause of delay in
\n\tfinalization of the assessment no fault can be found in the approach
\n\tadopted by the Tribunal in remanding the matter for ascertaining the
\n\tfacts regarding the actual cause of delay.\n<\/p>\n
\t As
\n\tregards remanding the matter for the purpose of verifying as to
\n\twhether the vendor had in fact paid the tax in the treasury, the
\n\tTribunal had placed reliance on an earlier decision of the Tribunal
\n\twhereby it was held that once Form No.40 is produced by the dealer,
\n\tno further proof about payment of tax should be insisted from the
\n\tdealer.  It was for the Department to inquire whether the tax is
\n\tpaid in the treasury or not.  On inquiry, if there is material on
\n\trecord about non-payment of tax in the treasury, the Department can
\n\treject the claim.  The Tribunal, therefore, remanded the matter to
\n\tthe first appellate authority to make inquiry as to whether tax had
\n\tbeen paid in the treasury or not and accordingly, accept or reject
\n\tthe claim depending on whether or not the tax is paid in the
\n\ttreasury.  In absence of any material on record to indicate as to
\n\twhether or not the tax had been paid in the treasury, no infirmity
\n\tcan be found in the order of the Tribunal in remanding the matter
\n\tfor the purpose of enabling the concerned officer to inquire and
\n\tverify as to whether tax is paid in the treasury or not and decide
\n\tthe matter accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
\t In
\n\tthe aforesaid circumstances, no infirmity can be found in the
\n\timpugned order of the Tribunal in remanding the matter for the
\n\tpurpose of making inquiry on facts in relation to the two issues
\n\tinvolved, so as to warrant any intervention. No question of law,
\n\tmuch less any substantial question of law can be stated to arise out
\n\tof the impugned order of the Tribunal. The appeal is, accordingly,
\n\tdismissed with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t While
\n\tdismissing the appeal, it is clarified that this Court has not
\n\tentered into the merits of the case.  However, the first appellate
\n\tauthority shall in the first instance determine the question of
\n\tlimitation.  It would be open to the first appellate authority if it
\n\tso deems fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to refer
\n\tthe matter to the Assessing Officer. The appellate authority shall
\n\tconsider the matter de novo taking into consideration all the
\n\tcontentions raised on behalf of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t[D.A.MEHTA,
\nJ.]<\/p>\n
[HARSHA
\nDEVANI, J.]<\/p>\n
parmar*<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Master vs Unknown on 18 March, 2010 Author: D.A.Mehta,&Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/2517\/2009 8\/ 8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 2517 of 2009 ========================================= MASTER ENTERPRISE – Appellant(s) Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES & 1 – Opponent(s) ========================================= […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-200949","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMaster vs Unknown on 18 March, 2010 - 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\/master-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Master vs Unknown on 18 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/master-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-19T06:08:10+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/master-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/master-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Master vs Unknown on 18 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-19T06:08:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/master-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1893,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/master-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/master-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/master-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Master vs Unknown on 18 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-19T06:08:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/master-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/master-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/master-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Master vs Unknown on 18 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Master vs Unknown on 18 March, 2010 - 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\/master-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Master vs Unknown on 18 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/master-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-19T06:08:10+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/master-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/master-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Master vs Unknown on 18 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-19T06:08:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/master-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010"},"wordCount":1893,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/master-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/master-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/master-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010","name":"Master vs Unknown on 18 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-19T06:08:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/master-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/master-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/master-vs-unknown-on-18-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Master vs Unknown on 18 March, 2010"}]},{"@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\/200949","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=200949"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200949\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=200949"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=200949"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=200949"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}