{"id":209962,"date":"2010-03-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-deputy-on-22-march-2010"},"modified":"2018-12-28T17:18:02","modified_gmt":"2018-12-28T11:48:02","slug":"ahmedabad-vs-deputy-on-22-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-deputy-on-22-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ahmedabad vs Deputy on 22 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Ahmedabad vs Deputy on 22 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\nSCA\/2464\/2010\t 1\/ 11\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 2464 of 2010\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA   Sd\/-\n \n\n \nHONOURABLE\nMS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI  Sd\/-\n \n\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\tYES\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 ?    YES\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\t  NO     \n\t\t\t\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 ?               NO\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\t  NO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nAHMEDABAD\nURBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nDEPUTY\nDIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\nAppearance : \nMR\nS.N. SOPARKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MRS SWATI SOPARKAR AND MISS\nBHOOMI THAKORE for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nNOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR\nM.R.BHATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MRS MAUNA M BHATT for Respondent(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 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\nDate\n: 22\/03\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)<\/p>\n
1.\tHeard
\nlearned Counsel appearing for both sides. Considering the nature of
\ncontroversy and the view that the Court is inclined to adopt, the
\npetition has been heard finally with the consent of the learned
\nCounsel for both the sides. Rule.\n<\/p>\n
Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent is directed to waive
\nservice of Rule.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\npetitioner is  Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, an autonomous
\nbody constituted under the provisions of The Gujarat Town Planning
\nand Urban Development Act, 1976. The income of the petitioner was
\nexempt till Assessment Year 2002-2003 under section 10(20A) of the
\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) considering the fact that  the
\npetitioner was engaged in development of urban areas of Ahmedabad.
\nThe said provision was omitted with effect from  1.4.2003 by the
\nFinance Act, 2002. The petitioner had applied for and had been
\ngranted registration under section 12AA of the Act with effect from
\n1.4.2002 vide order (in the form of Certificate) dated 23.10.2003 by
\nthe Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tFor
\nAssessment Years 2003-2004 to 2006-2007 the petitioner filed returns
\nof income declaring total income at Rs. Nil as the income was exempt
\nunder the Provisions of Section 11 of the Act on the basis of
\nCertificate of Registration dated 23.10.2003 under section 12AA of
\nthe Act. The Assessing Officer  accepted the stand of the petitioner
\nand assessed the petitioner as a charitable institution  entitled to
\nexemption under section 11 of the Act for all the Assessment Years
\nupto Assessment Year 2000-2007.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tFor
\nAssessment Year 2007-2008, the petitioner filed return of income on
\n22.10.2007 declaring income at Rs. Nil after claiming set-off of
\ncarried forward losses to the extent of income available, i.e.
\nRs.1,83,29,82,000\/-.  The Assessing Officer did not accept the claim
\nmade by the Assessee  and came to the conclusion that the claim of
\nthe petitioner for set-off of  capital deficit of earlier years and
\nunabsorbed depreciation was disallowable not being  business losses
\nand unabsorbed depreciation as per the Act. Accordingly, the total
\nincome was assessed at a sum of Rs.1,89,22,49,213\/- vide assessment
\norder dated  30.12.2009 framed under section  143(3) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tThe
\nAssessee has challenged the said assessment by way of Appeal and the
\nAppeal is pending before the Appellate Authority. In the meantime,
\nthe Assessee sought stay of demand. However, vide communication dated
\n16.2.2010 (Annexure ‘A’) the respondent informed the petitioner that
\nthe request for stay of demand was accepted partially subject to the
\ncondition that 50% of the demand is paid up by  25.2.2010 failing
\nwhich the respondent would initiate coercive measures to enforce the
\ndemand payable by the petitioner. It is this communication which is
\nprimarily challenged in the present petition along with
\nincidental\/alternative prayer to stay the Demand Notice dated
\n30.12.2009.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tOn
\nbehalf of the petitioner it was submitted that the issue on merits
\nwas concluded in favour of the petitioner by the judgments rendered
\nby this Court as confirmed by the Apex Court. It was also submitted
\nthat Circular issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes was binding so
\nfar as the respondent is concerned and the respondent was duty bound
\nto stay the disputed demand till decision of First Appeal. In support
\nof the submissions reliance has been placed on the following
\njudgments :\n<\/p>\n
[1]\tCIT
\nVs.Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain \tMandal \t(1995) 211 ITR 293
\n(Guj.)<\/p>\n
[2]\tHiralal
\nBhagwati Vs. CIT (2000) 246 ITR 188 \t(Guj.)<\/p>\n
[3]\tAsstt.\n<\/p>\n
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Surat City  \tGymkhana, (2008) 300 ITR
\n214 (SC).\n<\/p>\n
[4]\tMadhu
\nSilica Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) 227 ITR \t350 \t(Guj.)<\/p>\n
[5]
\nCIT Vs. Gujarat Maritime Board (2007) 295 ITR 561 \t(SC).\n<\/p>\n
\tAttention
\nwas also invited to order dated  3.4.2008 made in Tax Appeal No. 667
\nof 2007  in the case of  CIT Vs. Surat Urban Development Authority,
\nto submit that on merits the issue was concluded in favour of the
\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tOn
\nbehalf of the respondent it was contended that as and when  the
\nassessment was taken-up, as recorded  by respondent, there was non
\ncooperation from the petitioner Assessee by not furnishing Profit and
\nLoss Account as called for and not furnishing details in the format
\ncalled for. That though Certificate issued under section 12AA was
\ncancelled only by order  dated  15.2.2010 the same was with effect
\nfrom 1.4.2002 and hence the petitioner was not eligible for exemption
\nunder section 11 of the Act and the assessment had correctly been
\nframed.  Therefore, the exercise of discretion by the Assessing
\nOfficer to recover 50% of the demand  while staying the balance 50%
\nof the demand should not be interfered with. Learned Counsel read
\nextensively from Affidavit-in-Reply dated 12.3.2010 filed by the
\nrespondent to emphasise the stand of the respondent Authority.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tConsidering
\nthe fact that the Appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before
\nthe First Appellate Authority the Court does not intend  to observe
\nanything in relation to the merits of the controversy. Admittedly the
\nassessment has been framed on 30.12.2009. The Certificate of
\nRegistration granted by Director of Income Tax  (Exemption) under
\nsection  12AA of the Act dated 23.10.2003 has been cancelled only on
\n15.2.2010. In the circumstances, on the date when the Assessment
\nOrder  was framed viz., 30.12.2009, the income of the petitioner was
\nexempt in entirety and the Assessing Officer could not have travelled
\nbeyond the Certificate of Registration granted under section 12AA of
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tSection
\n12AA of the Act lays down the procedure for registration in relation
\nto the conditions for applicability of sections 11 & 12 as
\nprovided in section 12A of the Act. Therefore, once the procedure is
\ncomplete as provided in sub-section (1) of section 12AA of the Act
\nand a Certificate is issued granting registration to the Trust or
\nInstitution it is apparent that the same is a document evidencing
\nsatisfaction about : (1) genuineness of the activities  of the Trust
\nor institution, (2) about the objects of the Trust or Institution.
\nSection 12A  of the Act stipulates that provisions of sections 11 &
\n12 shall not apply in relation to income of a Trust or an Institution
\nunless conditions stipulated therein are fulfilled.  Thus granting of
\nregistration under section 12AA of the Act denotes, as per
\nlegislative scheme, that conditions laid down in section 12A of the
\nAct stand fulfilled.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tThe
\neffect of such a Certificate of Registration under section 12AA of
\nthe Act, therefore, cannot be ignored or wished away by the Assessing
\nOfficer by adopting a stand that the Trust or Institution is not
\nfulfilling conditions for applicability of sections 11 & 12 of
\nthe Act. In the case of Gestetner Duplicators P. Ltd. Vs.  CIT (1979)
\n117 ITR 1 (SC) the Apex Court  was called upon to determine as to
\nwhether the contribution made by the employer should be treated as a
\nbusiness expenditure, the requirement being contribution should be
\nmade to a recognized provident fund. In almost similar circumstances,
\nthe Assessing Officer in the said case did not hold in favour of the
\nemployer and the Apex Court while deciding  the controversy as to
\nwhat constituted  Salary   observed as under :\n<\/p>\n
  …. The facts in the
\npresent case that need be stressed in this behalf are that it was as
\nfar  back as  1937 that the CIT had granted recognition to the
\nprovident fund maintained by the assessee under the relevant Rules
\nunder the 1922 Act, that such recognition had been granted  after the
\ntrue nature of the commission payable by the assessee to its salesmen
\nunder their contracts of employment had been brought  to the notice
\nof the Commissioner and that the said recognition  had continued to
\nremain in operation during the relevant assessment years in question,
\n the last fact in particular clearly implied that the provident fund
\nof the assessee did  satisfy all the conditions laid down in r.4 of
\nPart A of the Fourth Schedule to the Act  even during the  relevant
\nassessment years. In that situation we do not think that it was open
\nto the taxing authorities to question the recognition in any of the
\nrelevant years  on the ground that the assessee’s provident fund did
\nnot satisfy any particular condition mentioned in r.4. It would be
\nconducive to judicial discipline and the maintaining of certainty and
\nuniformity  in administering  the law that the taxing  authorities
\nshould proceed on the basis that the recognition granted and
\navailable for any particular assessment year implies that the
\nprovident fund satisfies all the conditions under  r.4 of Part A of
\nthe Fourth Schedule to the Act and not sit in judgment over it .\n<\/p>\n
11.\tApplying
\nthe ratio enunciated as aforestated to the facts of the present case,
\nit is apparent that while framing Assessment Order on 30.12.2009 it
\nwas not open to the Assessing Officer to ignore Certificate of
\nRegistration dated 23.10.2003 granted under section 12AA of the Act
\nby Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad. Therefore, on this
\nlimited count the Assessment Order appears to be without jurisdiction
\nand the demand in pursuance thereto could not have been sought to be
\nrecovered. The respondent was therefore duty bound to stay recovery
\nof the demand raised pursuant to Assessment Order dated 30.12.2009
\nfor Assessment Year 2007-2008 till disposal of the First Appeal which
\nis alrady pending before First Appellate Authority.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tAccordingly,
\nthe respondent is hereby directed to stay recovery of entire demand
\nraised in pursuance of Assessment Order dated  30.12.2009 for
\nAssessment Year  2007-2008 till final disposal of the Appeal pending
\nbefore First Appellate Authority.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tThe
\npetition is allowed accordingly in the aforesaid terms. Rule made
\nabsolute with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tAt
\nthis stage, learned Counsel for the respondent states that the matter
\nmay be admitted and the demand may be stayed till disposal of the
\nFirst Appeal as the Counsel is not agreeable to the final disposal of
\nthe petition. The statement is noted. No further orders are
\nnecessary.\n<\/p>\n
         Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                     Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
    (D.A.\n<\/p>\n
Mehta, J.)  \t  (H.N. Devani, J.)\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \nM.M.BHATT\n\n    \n\n \n\t   \n      \n      \n\t    \n\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n\t   \n      \n\t  \t    \n\t\t   Top\n\t   \n      \n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Ahmedabad vs Deputy on 22 March, 2010 Author: D.A.Mehta,&Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/2464\/2010 1\/ 11 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2464 of 2010 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Sd\/- HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Sd\/- ========================================================= 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-209962","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAhmedabad vs Deputy on 22 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\/ahmedabad-vs-deputy-on-22-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ahmedabad vs Deputy on 22 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-deputy-on-22-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=\"2010-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-28T11:48:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-deputy-on-22-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-deputy-on-22-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ahmedabad vs Deputy on 22 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-28T11:48:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-deputy-on-22-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1610,\"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\\\/ahmedabad-vs-deputy-on-22-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-deputy-on-22-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-deputy-on-22-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Ahmedabad vs Deputy on 22 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-28T11:48:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-deputy-on-22-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-deputy-on-22-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ahmedabad-vs-deputy-on-22-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ahmedabad vs Deputy on 22 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":"Ahmedabad vs Deputy on 22 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\/ahmedabad-vs-deputy-on-22-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ahmedabad vs Deputy on 22 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-deputy-on-22-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-28T11:48:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-deputy-on-22-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-deputy-on-22-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ahmedabad vs Deputy on 22 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-28T11:48:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-deputy-on-22-march-2010"},"wordCount":1610,"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\/ahmedabad-vs-deputy-on-22-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-deputy-on-22-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-deputy-on-22-march-2010","name":"Ahmedabad vs Deputy on 22 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-28T11:48:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-deputy-on-22-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-deputy-on-22-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ahmedabad-vs-deputy-on-22-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ahmedabad vs Deputy on 22 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\/209962","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=209962"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/209962\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=209962"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=209962"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=209962"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}