{"id":203219,"date":"1961-10-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-10-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsaran-das-and-bros-vs-commercial-tax-officer-on-31-october-1961"},"modified":"2016-09-05T03:43:39","modified_gmt":"2016-09-04T22:13:39","slug":"ramsaran-das-and-bros-vs-commercial-tax-officer-on-31-october-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsaran-das-and-bros-vs-commercial-tax-officer-on-31-october-1961","title":{"rendered":"Ramsaran Das And Bros vs Commercial Tax Officer, … on 31 October, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ramsaran Das And Bros vs Commercial Tax Officer, … on 31 October, 1961<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 1326, \t\t 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 276<\/div>\n
Author: B P Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Kapur, J.L., Hidayatullah, M., Shah, J.C., Mudholkar, J.R.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAMSARAN DAS AND BROS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CALACUTTAAND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n31\/10\/1961\n\nBENCH:\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nBENCH:\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nKAPUR, J.L.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nSHAH, J.C.\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1962 AIR 1326\t\t  1962 SCR  Supl. (1) 276\n\n\nACT:\n     Supreme  Court-Practice-Appeal   by   special\nleave from  order  of  assessment-Maintainability-\nStatutory  remedies   to   be\texhausted   first-\nConstitution of India, Art. 136.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     In respect\t of its\t business as  a\t middleman\nrelating mainly\t to sales  of coal and coke in the\ncourse of  inter-State trade,  the appellant  firm\nwas assessed to Central sales tax under s. 8(2) of\nthe Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, by the Commercial\nTax officer. The appellant without availing itself\nof the\tremedies under\tthe Act,  applied for  and\nobtained special leave to appeal under Art. 136 of\nthe Constitution  of India  directly  against  the\norder of  assessment When  the appeal was taken up\nfor hearing, the question was raised as to whether\nit should  be entertained, when even the facts had\nnot been  finally determined  by the  final  fact-\nfinding authority  under  the  Act,  nor  had  the\njurisdiction of\t the High  Court been  invoked\tto\nexercise its powers under the Act.\n     Held,  that   an  assessee\t is  not  entitled\nordinarily  to\t come  up  to  the  Supreme  Court\ndirectly against  the judgment\tof  the\t Assessing\nAuthority  and\tinvoke\tthe  Court's  jurisdiction\nunder Art.  136 of  the Constitution without first\nexhausting the\tremedies provided  by  the  taxing\nstatutes.\n     Mahadayal\tPremchandras   v.  Commercial  Tax\nOfficer Calcutta,<\/a>  [1959] S.C.R. 551 and The State\nof Bombay  v. M\/s. Ratilal Vedilal,<\/a> [1961] 2 S. C.\nR. 367, explained.\n     Chandi Prasad Chokhani v. The State of Bihar,<\/a>\n[1962] 2  S. G.\t R. 276\t and Kanhaiyalal  Lohia v,\nCommissioner of\t Income-Tax Bengal, [1962] 2 S. C.\nR. 839, followed.\n^\n     Held, further,  that in  the present case, in\nwhich there,  were no special circumstances and in\nwhich  the   facts  had\t  not  yet   been  finally\ndetermined, the\t appeal must  be considered  to be\nincompetent.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION:  Civil  Appeal
\nNo. 592 of 1960.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
\norder dated  June 17,  1959, of the Commercial Tax
\nofficer, Calcutta, in case No. 54(c) of 1969-60.\n<\/p>\n
277<\/span><\/p>\n
     N. a.  Chatterjee and S. a. Mazumdar, for the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
     B. Sen and P. E. Bose, for respondents Nos. 1<\/span><\/p>\n
and 2.\n<\/p>\n
     K. N.  Rajagopal Sastri  and T.  M. Sen,  for
\nrespondent No. 3.\n<\/p>\n
     1961. October  31. The  Judgment of the Court
\nwas delivered by
\n     SINHA, a.\tJ.-This\t is  a\tdirect\tappeal\tby
\nspecial leave  granted by  this court on September
\n7, 1969,  against the  order, dated July 17, 1959,
\npassed by  the first respondent-the Commercial Tax
\nofficer-assessing the  appellant to  central sales
\ntax amounting  to Rs.  42,647 odd,  for the period
\nJuly 30, 1957 to March 31, 1958, under the Central
\nSales Tax  Act (LXXIV  of 1956)-which  hereinafter
\nwill  be  referred  to\tas  the\t Act.  The  second
\nrespondent is  the State  of West  Bengal, and the
\nthird respondent is the Union of India.\n<\/p>\n
     In view  of the  order we\tpropose to make in
\nthis ease,  it is  not necessary  to state  in any
\ndetail the  facts and  circumstances leading up to
\nthis appeal.  The appellant is a partnership firm,
\nunder  the   Indian  Partnership   Act,\t with  its
\nprincipal place\t of business  at 18, Netaji Subhas
\nRoad, Calcutta,\t within the  jurisdiction  of  the
\nfirst respondent.  The appellant  alleges that\the
\ncarries on business of two kinds, namely, (1) of a
\ndealer in  coal and  coke, and\t(2) of a middleman
\nbringing about\tsales of  coal\tand  coke  between
\ncolliery owners\t and consumers.\t In respect of its
\nbusiness  as   a  dealer,   the\t appellant   is\t a
\nregistered dealer  under the Bengal Finance (Sales
\nTax) Act  (Bengal Act  VI  of  1941).  Its  second
\nbusiness   as  a middleman relates mainly to sales
\nof coal and coke in the course of interstate trade
\nor commerce,  and the  tax in  question relates to
\nthis second  branch of\tits business. The Act came
\ninto operation in the State of West Bengal on July
\n1, 1957, when the appellant
\n278<\/span>
\napplied\t for   and  obtained   a  certificate\tof
\nregistration under  the Act  on July  30, 1957. In
\nMay 1958,  the appellant made its return under the
\nAct in\trespect of  the period\taforesaid, showing
\nthe turnover  as nil.  But in spite of its showing
\ncause against  the proposed  assessment, the first
\nrespondent   determined\t   Rs.9,17,196\t as    the
\nappellant’s turnover  in  respect  of  the  period
\naforesaid and  assessed central\t sales tax thereon
\nat Rs.\t42,617.82nP. under s. 8(2) of the Act, and
\nissued Demand  Notice. The  appellant  moved  this
\nCourt and  obtained the\t special leave\tto  appeal
\nfrom the  order of  the\t first\trespondent  making
\nassessment and\tlater a demand on the basis of the
\nassessment.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  statement of  facts given above, it
\nis clear  that the  appellant did  not exhaust all
\nhis  remedies  under  the  Act\titself;\t and  came
\ndirectly  to   this  Court  as\tif  the\t order\tof
\nAssessment passed  by  the  first  respondent  was
\nfinal. The  question,  therefore,  arises  whether
\nthis court  should entertain the appeal, when even
\nthe facts  have not been finally determined by the
\nfinal fact-finding  authority under  the Act,  nor
\nhas  the  jurisdiction\tof  the\t High  Court  been
\ninvolved to  exercise its power under the Act. But
\nMr. Chatterjee,\t on behalf  of the  appellant, has
\ncontended in the first instance that the powers of
\nthis Court  are\t wide  enough  to  enable  him\tto
\napproach this Court direct, when according to him,
\nthere had  been an  assessment of  tax without the
\nauthority of  law. There  is  no  doubt\t that  the
\npowers\tof  this  Court\t under\tArt.  136  of  the
\nConstitution  are   as\twide  as  they\tcould  be,
\nbecause, unlike\t the  preceding\t articles  of  the
\nconstitution, there  is\t no  limitation\t that  the
\nJudgment, decree  or order  should be final in the
\nsense  that   the  appellant  in  this\tCourt  has
\nexhausted all  the remedies provided by law before
\ninvoking the  jurisdiction of  this Court to grant
\n“special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree
\ndetermination sentence\tor order  in any  case\tor
\nmatter passed or
\n279<\/span>
\nmade by\t any Court or Tribunal in the territory of
\nIndia.” In  spite of  the wide\tamplitude  of  the
\njurisdiction of this Court to entertain appeals by
\nspecial leave,\tthis  Court  has  imposed  certain
\nlimitations  on\t its  own  powers  for\tvery  good
\nreasons, and  has refused  ordinarily to entertain
\nsuch appeals  when the\tlitigant has  not  availed
\nhimself of  the ordinary remedies available to him
\nat law.\t But Mr.  Chatterjee,  on  behalf  of  the
\nappellant, invited  our attention  to the decision
\nof  this   Court  in   Mahadayal  Premchandra\tv.
\nCommercial Tax of<\/a>ficer, Calcutta (1) in which this
\nCourt interfered  with\tthe  order  of\tassessment
\npassed by  the Commercial Tax officer of Calcutta,
\nand this  Court had  been moved\t by way of special
\nleave to  appeal against the original order of the
\nTaxing officer.\t It is\tclaimed on  behalf of  the
\nappellant  that\t decision  completely  covers  the
\npoints in controversy in the present case also. It
\nis contended  that  was\t also  a  case,\t like  the
\npresent one  of commission  agents  who\t had  been
\ncharged sales  tax. There  are several reasons why
\nthe authority  of that\tdecision cannot be invoked
\nin favour  of the  appellant  on  the  preliminary
\nquestion  whether   this  Court\t  should  at   all
\nentertain  the\t appeal.  In  that  case,  in  the
\nreported  decision,   of  this\t Court,\t no   such
\nquestion,  as  we  have\t to  determine,\t had  been
\nraised. Apparently,  counsel for  both the parties
\nwere anxious  to have  the final  determination of
\nthe controversy\t by this  Court.  Secondly,  there
\nwere special circumstances in that case, which are
\nnot  present   in  the\t instant  case.\t The  most
\noutstanding feature  of that  case was, as pointed
\nout by\tthis Court,  that the  Assessing Authority
\nhad not\t exercised its\town judgment in the matter
\nof  the\t assessment  in\t question.  The\t Assessing
\nAuthority had, contrary to its own judgment, taken
\ninstructions from  the Assistant  Commissioner and
\nfollowed those\tdirections  This  Court\t had  also
\npointed out that even
\n     (1) [1959] S. C. R. 551.\n<\/p>\n
280<\/span><\/p>\n
though the  Assessing Authority\t was satisfied\ton
\nthe materials  placed by  the assessee that he was
\nnot liable  to pay  sales tax,\the carried out the
\ndirections  of\ta  superior  officer.  This  Court
\nfurther pointed\t out that  there had been complete
\nfailure of  justice on\taccount of  the, fact that
\nthe assessee had been given no opportunity to meet
\nthe points made by the Assistant Commissioner, and
\nthe assessment order was made behind his back. The
\nCourt  was   led  to   make  the   following  very
\nsignificant observations:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The procedure  adopted was, to say that
\n     least, unfair and was calculated to undermine
\n     the confidence of the public in the impartial
\n     and  fair\tadministration\tof  the\t sales-tax
\n     Department concerned.  We would  have, simply
\n     on this  ground,  set  aside  the\tassessment
\n     order  made   by  the  first  respondent  and
\n     remanded the  matter back\tto him for his due
\n     consideration in  accordance with law, but as
\n     the matter\t is old and a remand would lead to
\n     unnecessary harassment  of the appellants, we
\n     have preferred  to deal  with the\tappeal\ton
\n     merits.” (p. 560).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It was in those circumstances that this Court went
\ninto the  whole\t controversy  on  its  merits  and
\ndetermined the\tappeal in  favour of the assessee.
\nThat case, therefore, in no precedent in favour of
\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     The next  case relied upon by the counsel for
\nthe appellant  is The  State  of  Bombay  v.  M\/s.
\nRatikal Vadilal<\/a>(1).  That was  a case in which the
\nState of  Bombay had  appealed to  this\t Court\ton
\nspecial leave  against the  order of the Sales Tax
\nTribunal,  Bombay,   by\t which\tthe  Tribunal  had
\nallowed the  appeal before  it and  set aside  the
\norder of  the Collector\t of Sales  Tax, under  the
\nBombay Sales Tax Act. The respondents in that case
\nwere commission\t agents doing business as clearing
\nand
\n     (1) [1961] 2 S.C.R. 367
\n281<\/span>
\ntransport contractors.\tThey had  applied  to  the
\nCollector  of\tSales\tTax,   Bombay,\t for   the
\ndetermination of  the question\tif they\t could\tbe
\ncalled “dealers”   within  the meaning\tof the Act
\nafter giving  the facts and circumstances of their
\ncase. In that case also no steps had been taken to
\nhave a\treference made to the High Court, and this
\nCourt observed that it has been frequently noticed
\nthat appeals  had been filed to this court without
\nexhausting all the remedies open to appellants and
\nthat ordinarily\t this Court  would not\tallow  the
\nHigh Courts  to be  bypassed and  the  appropriate
\ncourse for  an appellant  was to  exhaust all  his
\nremedies before\t invoking the jurisdiction of this
\nCourt under Art. 136 of the constitution. But this
\nCourt went  into the  merits of\t this case because
\nboth the  parties invited  the Court  to do so and
\ndid not\t insist upon  the preliminary  is an being
\ndecided. It  is clear,\ttherefore, that neither of
\nthe two\t cases relied  upon  by\t counsel  for  the
\nappellant is an authority for the proposition that
\nhe can\tcome up\t to this  Court on  special  leave
\ndirectly against  the judgment\tof  the\t Assessing
\nAuthority, without  exhausting\tall  his  remedies
\nunder the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     There are cases in which this Court was moved
\ndirectly against  the order  of assessment,  after
\nignoring the  orders of the High Court refusing to
\nhave a\treference  made,  or  decision\tthe  point
\nreferred,   against   the   assessee.\tIn   those
\ncircumstances, this Court refused to entertain the
\nappeal\tand   held  that  the  appellant  was  not
\nentitled to  invoke the jurisdiction of this Court
\nunder Art.  136, without  coming up in appeal from
\nthe final decision inter parties given by the High
\nCourt. The  latest decision  of this Court on that
\nquestion is  the case of Chandi Prasad Chokhani v.
\nThe State of Bihar<\/a> (1). In that case, the previous
\ndecisions of the Court have all been considered on
\nextenso. We  are in entire agreement with what has
\nbeen laid  down by  this Court\tin that\t batch\tof
\ncases. other decision of a Division Bench of
\n     (1) [1962] 2 S. C. R. 276.\n<\/p>\n
282<\/span><\/p>\n
this Court  is the  case of  Kanhaiyalal Lohia\tv.
\nCommissioner of\t Income<\/a> tax,  West Bengal  (1). In
\nthat case,  this Court has taken the same view and
\ndismissed the appeal as ‘incompetent.’
\n     The present  case in  a much  simpler one, in
\nwhich there  are no  special circumstances  and in
\nwhich the  facts have  not yet\tbeen finally deter
\nmined. It may also be noted that the appellant has
\nnot challenged\tthe vires  of the  Act or  of  any
\nother law.  We, therefore,  think that\twe  should
\ndismiss\t this  appeal  as  ‘incompetent’,  without
\nexpressing  any\t opinion  on  the  merits  of  the
\ncontroversy. It\t will be  open to the appellant to
\ntake such  steps as it may be advised, in pursuing
\nsuch remedies  as may be available to it under the
\nlaw. The  appeal is  accordingly dismissed, but in
\nthe circumstances without Costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t Appeal dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ramsaran Das And Bros vs Commercial Tax Officer, … on 31 October, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 1326, 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 276 Author: B P Sinha Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Kapur, J.L., Hidayatullah, M., Shah, J.C., Mudholkar, J.R. PETITIONER: RAMSARAN DAS AND BROS. Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, CALACUTTAAND OTHERS […]<\/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-203219","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRamsaran Das And Bros vs Commercial Tax Officer, ... on 31 October, 1961 - 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\/ramsaran-das-and-bros-vs-commercial-tax-officer-on-31-october-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramsaran Das And Bros vs Commercial Tax Officer, ... on 31 October, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsaran-das-and-bros-vs-commercial-tax-officer-on-31-october-1961\" \/>\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=\"1961-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-04T22:13:39+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramsaran-das-and-bros-vs-commercial-tax-officer-on-31-october-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramsaran-das-and-bros-vs-commercial-tax-officer-on-31-october-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramsaran Das And Bros vs Commercial Tax Officer, … on 31 October, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-04T22:13:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramsaran-das-and-bros-vs-commercial-tax-officer-on-31-october-1961\"},\"wordCount\":1817,\"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\\\/ramsaran-das-and-bros-vs-commercial-tax-officer-on-31-october-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramsaran-das-and-bros-vs-commercial-tax-officer-on-31-october-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramsaran-das-and-bros-vs-commercial-tax-officer-on-31-october-1961\",\"name\":\"Ramsaran Das And Bros vs Commercial Tax Officer, ... on 31 October, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-04T22:13:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramsaran-das-and-bros-vs-commercial-tax-officer-on-31-october-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramsaran-das-and-bros-vs-commercial-tax-officer-on-31-october-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramsaran-das-and-bros-vs-commercial-tax-officer-on-31-october-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramsaran Das And Bros vs Commercial Tax Officer, … on 31 October, 1961\"}]},{\"@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":"Ramsaran Das And Bros vs Commercial Tax Officer, ... on 31 October, 1961 - 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\/ramsaran-das-and-bros-vs-commercial-tax-officer-on-31-october-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramsaran Das And Bros vs Commercial Tax Officer, ... on 31 October, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsaran-das-and-bros-vs-commercial-tax-officer-on-31-october-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-04T22:13:39+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsaran-das-and-bros-vs-commercial-tax-officer-on-31-october-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsaran-das-and-bros-vs-commercial-tax-officer-on-31-october-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramsaran Das And Bros vs Commercial Tax Officer, … on 31 October, 1961","datePublished":"1961-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-04T22:13:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsaran-das-and-bros-vs-commercial-tax-officer-on-31-october-1961"},"wordCount":1817,"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\/ramsaran-das-and-bros-vs-commercial-tax-officer-on-31-october-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsaran-das-and-bros-vs-commercial-tax-officer-on-31-october-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsaran-das-and-bros-vs-commercial-tax-officer-on-31-october-1961","name":"Ramsaran Das And Bros vs Commercial Tax Officer, ... on 31 October, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-04T22:13:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsaran-das-and-bros-vs-commercial-tax-officer-on-31-october-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsaran-das-and-bros-vs-commercial-tax-officer-on-31-october-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramsaran-das-and-bros-vs-commercial-tax-officer-on-31-october-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramsaran Das And Bros vs Commercial Tax Officer, … on 31 October, 1961"}]},{"@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\/203219","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=203219"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203219\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203219"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203219"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203219"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}