{"id":206860,"date":"2011-07-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-vs-brief-on-20-july-2011"},"modified":"2016-04-04T21:32:55","modified_gmt":"2016-04-04T16:02:55","slug":"asstt-vs-brief-on-20-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-vs-brief-on-20-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Asstt vs Brief on 20 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Asstt vs Brief on 20 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Akil Kureshi, Gokani,<\/div>\n
  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \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\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/9\/2001\t 6\/ 6\tJUDGMENT \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. 9 of 2001\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI  \nHONOURABLE\nMS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nASSTT.\nC I T - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nHYNOUP\nFOOD & OIL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nMANISH R BHATT for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nRULE SERVED for Opponent(s) :\n1, \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 AKIL KURESHI\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 SONIA GOKANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 20\/07\/2011 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI)<\/p>\n
Brief
\n\tfacts of the present case are that the assessee respondent company
\n\twas involved in the business of processing of raw cotton seed oil,
\n\tgroundnut  oil, etc. The main business of the company was processing
\n\tcotton seed oil and it was also engaged doing similar job work on
\n\tbehalf of others. For the assessment year 1991-1992, the Assessing
\n\tofficer estimated sale outside the books. This order came to be
\n\tchallenged before the CIT(Appeals) which reduced the additions made
\n\tby the Assessing Officer. Against this order of CIT(Appeals), both
\n\tthe Revenue and assessee respondent approached the Income Tax
\n\tAppellate Tribunal and the tribunal by a common judgement held in
\n\tfavour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The impugned
\n\tjudgement of the tribunal dated 27.7.2000 is in challenge before
\n\tthis Court by way of present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
While
\n\tadmitting the appeal, following question of law was framed for
\n\tdetermination of this Court :\n<\/p>\n
” (1)
\nWhether on the facts and in the circumstances  of  the    case,
\nthe    Appellate   Tribunal   has  substantially  erred  in  law  in
\ndeleting   the   disallowance  made on account of process loss and
\nsuppression  of  production  and  sales  made  on   account of
\nsatisfaction recorded by the Assessing  Officer  that  excessive
\nprocess loss was claimed by the assessee only to suppress real
\nextent  of  production ?\n<\/p>\n
(2) Whether  on the facts and in the circumstances of  the   case,   the    Appellate    Tribunal    has  substantially  erred in law in directing to allow  separate relief under sections 80HH  and  80I  of  the Income Tax Act ?”\n<\/p>\n
This
\n\tCourt had heard at length learned Counsel Mr Manish Bhatt,  senior
\n\tcounsel appearing for the appellant Revenue. Though rule has been
\n\tserved duly, none chose to appear for and on behalf of respondent.\n<\/p>\n
At
\n\tthe outset, it needs to be noted that with respect to question
\n\tNo.(1), against the order of the tribunal in case of this very
\n\tassessee respondent for the assessment year 1990-1991, the Revenue
\n\tchose to approach this Court by preferring Tax Appeal No.10\/2001
\n\twhere identical question of law, was admitted and has been decided
\n\tby this Court in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in
\n\tthe following manner :\n<\/p>\n
“9.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tQuite apart from the above observations, we find that the tribunal
\n\thad examined the materials on record which included the data of the
\n\tturnover, Gross Profit rate and process loss for several years. It
\n\twas found that year after year, the Gross Profit rate of the
\n\tassessee company was increasing. Process loss was fluctuating
\n\tbetween a minimum of 1.9% to maximum of 3.05%. The tribunal also
\n\tobserved that  the product manufactured by assessee is  refined
\n\tcotton seed oil which is obtained from refining raw cotton seed oil
\n\twhich is in turn obtained from crushing cotton seed by ginning
\n\tfactories. Cotton seed is an agricultural commodity. The quality of
\n\tcotton seed would certainly impact the raw cotton seed oil and
\n\tconsequently refined cotton seed oil. Quality of raw material would
\n\tdepend on several factors such as rainfall, quality of soil and
\n\tother such factors. It was also noted that if the raw cotton seed
\n\toil is obtained from crushing of inferior quality of cotton seed,
\n\tthen the process loss was likely to be higher,  but Gross Profit
\n\trate may go up since the assessee may have purchased the raw
\n\tmaterial at a cheaper rate. Tribunal also noted that there were
\n\tinstances where though process loss was high,  Gross Profit rate was
\n\talso high compared to other years. Tribunal noted contention of the
\n\tassessee  that the production recorded and maintained by the
\n\tassessee were being checked and supervised by the Food and Civil
\n\tSupply department of the Government. Periodic reports and returns
\n\twere submitted by the assessee. No irregularities were noticed.
\n\tTribunal also relied on the report of one M\/s. Vulcl laval, supplier
\n\tof machinery to the assessee for manufacturing of refined cotton
\n\tseed oil who had stated that process loss is typically found
\n\tdepending on the quality of raw cotton seed and functioning of the
\n\tplant and would normally range between 2.65% to 4.20%.  It can thus
\n\tbe seen that the tribunal based its findings on several factors and
\n\tcame to the conclusion that without any evidence or base the
\n\tAssessing Officer could not have held that the process loss claimed
\n\tby the assessee(in the present case at the rate of 3.05%) was
\n\tinflated or excessive.\n<\/p>\n
10.
\n\t\tWe are of the opinion that tribunal has considered the facts on
\n\trecord. Several relevant factors have been examined. These facts
\n\tincluded uncertainty of the nature of business and fluctuating
\n\tnature of process loss. By the very nature of things, the business
\n\tof assessee depended on
\n\tquality of cotton seed oil procured from the market. Such cotton
\n\tseed oil depending on quality of cotton produced being an
\n\tagricultural commodity, naturally quality would depend on the seeds
\n\tused, the technique employed by farmers for production, soil,
\n\trainfall, irrigation and so on. In absence of any additional
\n\tmaterial, only on basis of an isolated answer by one of the
\n\tDirectors of the  company, the Assessing Officer could not have come
\n\tto the conclusion that the process loss was artificially inflated.
\n\tTribunal had also relied on certificate given by the supplier of
\n\tmachine who stated that typically the process loss ranges between
\n\t2.65% to 4.20%.\n<\/p>\n
11.
\n\t\tIn addition to above, we also notice that in earlier years, orders
\n\tpassed by the tribunal were accepted by the Revenue and not carried
\n\tin appeal.\n<\/p>\n
12.
\n\t\tSum total of above discussion is that we do not find that the
\n\tdecision of the tribunal requires reconsideration. Question No.(1)
\n\tis therefore, answered against Revenue.”\n<\/p>\n
As
\n\tnothing is pointed out by the Revenue before this Court to take a
\n\tdifferent view than already taken in case of this very assessee,
\n\tquestion no(1) in the present  case is being answered in favour of
\n\tthe assessee and against the Revenue.\n<\/p>\n
With
\n\trespect to question no.(2), the issue is no longer res integra. This
\n\tCourt also in Tax Appeal No.10\/2001 following the decision of the
\n\tApex Court in case of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax v.
\n\tMandideep Eng. and PKG, IND. P. Ltd. reported in (2007)
\n\t292 ITR 1 (SC), has answered the same against the Revenue and in
\n\tfavour of the assessee. The Apex Court in above case held as under:\n<\/p>\n
“2.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Madhya Pradesh High Court in J.P. Tobacco Products P. ltd. v.
\n\tCIT reported in (1998) 229 ITR 123 took the view that both the
\n\tsections are independent and, therefore, the deductions could be
\n\tclaimed both under sections 80HH and 80-I on the gross total income.
\n\tAgainst this judgment a special leave petition was filed in this
\n\tcourt which was dismissed on the ground of delay on July 21,
\n\t2000(see[2000]245 ITR(st.)71). The decision in J.P.
\n\tTobacco Products P. ltd. (1998) 229 ITR 123(MP) was followed by the
\n\tsame High Court in the case of CIT v. Alpine Solvex P. ltd. in
\n\tI.T.A. No.92 of 1999 decided on May 2, 2000. Special Leave Petition
\n\tagainst this decision was dismissed by this Court on January 12,
\n\t2001,(see[2001]247 ITR (St.) 36).This view has been followed
\n\trepeatedly by different High Courts in a number of cases against
\n\twhich no special leave petitions were filed meaning thereby that the
\n\tDepartment has accepted the view taken in these judgements. See CIT
\n\tv. Nima Specific Family Trust reported in [2001] 248 ITR 29(Bom);
\n\tCIT v. Chokshi Contacts P. ltd.[2001] 251 ITR 587(Raj); CIT v. Amod
\n\tStamping[2005] 274 ITR 176 (Guj); CIT v. Mittal Appliances P. Ltd.
\n\t[2004] 270 ITR 65(MP); CIT v. Rochiram and Sons [2004] 271 ITR
\n\t444(Raj); CIT v. Prakash Chandra Basant Kumar[2005] 276 ITR 664(MP);
\n\tCIT v. S.B.Oil Industries P. Ltd. [2005] 274 ITR 495 (P&H); CIT
\n\tv. SKG Engineering P. Ltd. [2005] 119 DLT 673 and CIT v. Lucky
\n\tLaboratories Ltd. [2006] 200 CTR 305(All)<\/p>\n
\tSince
\n\tthe special leave petitions filed against the judgement of the
\n\tMadhya Pradesh High Court have been dismissed and the Department has
\n\tnot filed the special leave petitions against the judgement of
\n\tdifferent High Courts following the view taken by the Madhya Pradesh
\n\tHigh Court, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The Department
\n\thaving accepted the view taken in those judgments cannot be
\n\tpermitted to take a contrary view in the present case involving the
\n\tsame point. Accordingly, the civil appeal is dismissed. No costs.”\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of the above, question no.(2) is also answered in favour of the
\n\tassessee and against the Revenue.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tthe result, Tax Appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(Akil
\n\tKureshi,J.)<\/p>\n
(Ms.\n<\/p>\n
\tSonia Gokani,J.)<\/p>\n
(raghu)<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Asstt vs Brief on 20 July, 2011 Author: Akil Kureshi, Gokani, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/9\/2001 6\/ 6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 9 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI ========================================================= 1 Whether […]<\/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-206860","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAsstt vs Brief on 20 July, 2011 - 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\/asstt-vs-brief-on-20-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Asstt vs Brief on 20 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-vs-brief-on-20-july-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-04T16:02:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-vs-brief-on-20-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-vs-brief-on-20-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Asstt vs Brief on 20 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-04T16:02:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-vs-brief-on-20-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1405,\"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\/asstt-vs-brief-on-20-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-vs-brief-on-20-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-vs-brief-on-20-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Asstt vs Brief on 20 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-04T16:02:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-vs-brief-on-20-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-vs-brief-on-20-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-vs-brief-on-20-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Asstt vs Brief on 20 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Asstt vs Brief on 20 July, 2011 - 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\/asstt-vs-brief-on-20-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Asstt vs Brief on 20 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-vs-brief-on-20-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-04T16:02:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-vs-brief-on-20-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-vs-brief-on-20-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Asstt vs Brief on 20 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-04T16:02:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-vs-brief-on-20-july-2011"},"wordCount":1405,"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\/asstt-vs-brief-on-20-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-vs-brief-on-20-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-vs-brief-on-20-july-2011","name":"Asstt vs Brief on 20 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-04T16:02:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-vs-brief-on-20-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-vs-brief-on-20-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asstt-vs-brief-on-20-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Asstt vs Brief on 20 July, 2011"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/206860","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=206860"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/206860\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=206860"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=206860"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=206860"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}