{"id":210711,"date":"2011-11-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-ms-on-11-november-2011"},"modified":"2015-12-02T06:54:18","modified_gmt":"2015-12-02T01:24:18","slug":"commissioner-vs-ms-on-11-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-ms-on-11-november-2011","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs M\/S on 11 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Commissioner vs M\/S on 11 November, 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\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/536\/2011\t 7\/ 7\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. 536 of 2011\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER,\nCENTRAL EXCISE &CUSTOMS VADODARA-II - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nM\/S\nGUJARAT ALKALIES & CHEMICALS LTD - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nRJ OZA for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nNone 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: 11\/11\/2011 \n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)<\/p>\n
\tRevenue
\nis in appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal dated  8.10.2010.
\nFollowing question has been presented  before us for consideration :\n<\/p>\n
“Whether
\nin he facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed
\n substantial error  of law in confirming order of the appellate
\ncommissioner to set aside demand  of service tax, on services
\nprovided by the service provider, not resident  of India and also not
\nhaving their office in India even after  01.01.2005, when the law
\nprovides  for levy of such  service  Tax from 01.01.2005, vide
\nNotification NO.36\/2004-ST, dated 31.12.2004 read with Rule
\n2(i)(d)(iv) of Service Tax  Rules 1994 and when Supreme Court has
\nupheld  levy of such service tax from 01.01.2005?”\n<\/p>\n
\tIssue
\npertains to  levy of service tax on service provided by service
\nprovides who were not residents  in India  nor  they have  any office
\nin India.  Case of the Revenue  is that by virtue of notification
\ndated 31.12.2004, effective  from 1.1.2005 and reading the same  with
\nrule 2(i)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rules 1994, such service tax was duly
\nauthorized to be collected.\n<\/p>\n
\tCounsel
\nfor the Revenue took us through the orders on record.  We notice that
\nthe Tribunal  in its impugned order  relied on the decision of the
\nBombay High Court  in the case of Indian National Shipowners
\nAssociation  v. Union of India,<\/a>
\n2009 (13) S.T.R.235 (Bom.) holding that as per the statutory
\nprovisions applicable at the relevant time, service tax could not
\nhave been  levied in such cases.  Counsel for the Revenue  stated
\nthat such decision  of the Bombay High Court was carried before the
\nSupreme Court.  However, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP and
\nconfirmed the view of the  Bombay High Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe
\nnotice that the statutory provisions came to be materially changed
\nby introduction of section 66A to the Finance Act which was  brought
\ninto effect from April 2006 introducing  a charging section for the
\nabove purpose.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe
\nalso had an occasion to deal with a similar situation
\nin Tax Appeal No.1300 of 2010 and connected matters  decided on
\n28.4.2011 wherein  taking note of the decisions of the Bombay High
\nCourt as well as the Delhi High Court, we had confirmed the view of
\nthe Tribunal making following observations :\n<\/p>\n
“Having
\nthus heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused orders
\non record, we find that undisputedly with effect from 18\/04\/2006
\nSection 66A has been introduced in Finance Act, 1994 which reads as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
\t“66A.\n<\/p>\n
(1) Where any service specified in clause (105) of section 54 is, —\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tprovided
\nor to be provided by a person who has established a business or has a
\nfixed establishment from which the service is provided or to be
\nprovided or has his permanent address or usual place of residence, in
\na country other than India, and<\/p>\n
(b)\treceived
\nby a person (hereinafter referred to as the recipient) who has his
\nplace of business, fixed establishment, permanent address or usual
\nplace of residence, in India,<\/p>\n
such
\nservice shall, for the purpose of this section, be the taxable
\nservice, and such taxable service shall be treated as if the
\nrecipients had himself provided the service in India, and accordingly
\nall the provisions of this Chapter shall apply:\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided
\nthat where the recipients of the service is an individual and such
\nservice received by him is otherwise than for the purpose of use in
\nany business or commerce, the provisions of this sub-section shall
\nnot apply;\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided
\nfurther that where the provider of the service has his business
\nestablishment both in that country and elsewhere, the country, where
\nthe establishment of the provider of service directly concerned with
\nthe provision of service is located, shall bee treated as the country
\nfrom which the service is provided or to be provided.\n<\/p>\n
(2)<\/span><\/p>\n
Where a person is carrying on a business through a permanent
\nestablishment in India and through another permanent establishment in
\na country other than India, such permanent establishments shall be
\ntreated as separate persons for the purposes of this section.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\tBy
\nvirtue of the said provision, a major shift in certain situation has
\nbeen introduced with respect to the question of collection of service
\ntax.  We are however concerned with the period prior to 18\/04\/2006
\nwhen said Section 66A was not in the Statute Book.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tRule
\n2 (1) (d) (iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 is at the relevant time
\nread as under:\n<\/p>\n
“(iv)
\nin relation to any taxable service provided or to be provided by a
\nperson, who has established a business or has a fixed establishment
\nfrom which the service is provided or to be provided, or has his
\npermanent address or usual place of residence, in a country other
\nthan India, and such service provider does not have any office in
\nIndia, the person who receives such service and has his place of
\nbusiness, fixed establishment, permanent address or, as the case may
\nbe, usual place of residence, in India;”\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThis
\nRule for the period prior to 18\/04\/2006 and; in particular in absence
\nof Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 came up for consideration
\nbefore the Bombay High Court in case of Indian National Shipowners
\nAssociation (Supra). Relying
\non the decision of the Apex Court in case of Laghu Udyog Bharti
\n(Supra), Bombay High Court was of the opinion that before
\nenactment of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 there was no
\nauthority vested by law in the respondent to levy service tax on a
\nperson who is resident in India but who receives services outside
\nIndia. It was observed that law laid down by the Apex Court in case
\nof Laghu Udyog Bharti (Supra) is squarely applicable to Rule 2
\n(1) (d) (iv), which was relied by the revenue. Bombay High Court also
\nconsidered the effect of explanation to Section 65 (105) of the
\nFinance Act, 1994 which reads as under.\n<\/p>\n
“Explanation\n<\/p>\n
– For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where
\nany service provided or to be provided by a person, who has
\nestablished a business or has a fixed establishment from which the
\nservice is provided or to be provided, or has his permanent address
\nor usual place or residence, in a country
\nother than India and such service is received or to be received by a
\nperson who has his place of business, fixed establishment, permanent
\naddress or, as the case may be, usual place of residence, in India,
\nsuch service shall be deemed to be taxable service for the purposes
\nof this clause.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\tHowever,
\nin absence of any charging Section the Court was of the opinion that
\nmerely by virtue of provisions contained in Rule 2 (1) (d) (iv) in
\nthe Service Tax Rules, recipient of service tax could not be made
\nliable to pay the tax. It is of course true that in the concluding
\nportion, the Bench observed that the person who receives service
\noutside India from a person who is non-resident cannot be made to pay
\nservice tax.  To our mind, however, this is not the ratio of the
\ndecision and the entire decision is based on the ratio laid down by
\nthe Apex Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharti (Supra).\n<\/p>\n
\t\tBombay
\nHigh Court’s observations relevant for our purpose may be noted thus:\n<\/p>\n
“20.\n<\/p>\n
It appears that a similar provision in the rules was made applicable
\nby the Government in relation to the Clearing Agents by making
\ncustomers of the Clearing Agent liable for levy of the service tax.
\nThat question has been decided by the Supreme Court by its judgment
\nin the case of Lagu Udyog Bharati (supra) and the Supreme Court has
\nclearly laid down that the imposition of the service tax is on the
\npersons rendering the services and by making a provision in the
\nRules, levy of tax cannot be shifted to the recipients of the
\nservices and the rule framed which brought about this situation has
\nbeen declared by the Supreme Court to be invalid.  The law laid down
\nby the Supreme Court in its judgment in Laghu Udyog (supra) is
\nsquarely applicable to Rule 2 (1) (d) (iv), which is relied on in
\nthis case.  It appears that it is first time when the Act was amended
\nand Section 66A was inserted by Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 18-4-2006,
\nthe Respondents got legal authority to levy service tax on the
\nrecipients of the taxable service.  Now, because of the enactment of
\nSection 66A, a person who is resident in India or business in India
\nbecomes liable to be levied service tax when he receives service
\noutside India from a person who is non-resident or is from outside
\nIndia.  Before enactment of Section 66A it is apparent that there was
\nno authority vested by law in the Respondents to levy service tax on
\na person who is resident in India, but who receives services outside
\nIndia.  In that case till Section 66A was enacted a person liable was
\nthe one who rendered the services.  In other words, it is only after
\nenactment of Section 66A that taxable services received from abroad
\nby a person belonging to India are taxed in the hands of the Indian
\nresidents.  In such cases, the Indian recipient of the taxable
\nservices is deemed to be a service provider.  Before enactment of
\nSection 66A, there was no such provision in the Act and therefore,
\nthe Respondents had no authority to levy service tax on the members
\nof the petitioners – association.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\tWe
\nalso notice that Delhi High Court in case of Unitech Ltd., (supra)
\nrelying on decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Indian
\nNational Shipowners Association (Supra), deleted the tax demand
\nfrom assessee who was a recipient of taxable services in the nature
\nof architectural services from a non-resident.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIn
\nview of the above judicial pronouncement and in view of the facts on
\nrecord, we do not find that the Tribunal committed any error in
\nsetting aside the service tax demand. When we find that the charging
\nSection making service recipient liable to pay service tax, in
\ncertain circumstances was introduced by virtue of Section 66A of the
\nFinance Act, 1994 with effect from 18\/04\/2006, any demand of service
\ntax prior to the said period, merely relying on Rule 2 (1) (d) (iv)
\nof the Service Tax Rules was wholly impermissible. Tribunal correctly
\nruled in favour of assessee.\n<\/p>\n
\tCounsel
\nfor the respondent stated that even the basic fact whether the
\nrespondent receives management consultant service or not is not in
\ndispute.  Since this question does not arise for our consideration we
\nhave not adverted to the same.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nthe result Tax Appeals are dismissed.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThat
\nbeing the position, we do not find any error
\nin the view taken by the Tribunal. Tax Appeal is therefore dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t(Akil
\nKureshi J.)<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t(Ms.Sonia
\nGokani, J.)<\/p>\n
(vjn)<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Commissioner vs M\/S on 11 November, 2011 Author: Akil Kureshi, Gokani, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/536\/2011 7\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 536 of 2011 ========================================================= COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE &CUSTOMS VADODARA-II – Appellant(s) Versus M\/S GUJARAT ALKALIES & CHEMICALS LTD – […]<\/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-210711","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner vs M\/S on 11 November, 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\/commissioner-vs-ms-on-11-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner vs M\/S on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-ms-on-11-november-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=\"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-02T01:24:18+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\\\/commissioner-vs-ms-on-11-november-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-ms-on-11-november-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs M\\\/S on 11 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-02T01:24:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-ms-on-11-november-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1791,\"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\\\/commissioner-vs-ms-on-11-november-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-ms-on-11-november-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-ms-on-11-november-2011\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs M\\\/S on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-02T01:24:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-ms-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-ms-on-11-november-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-ms-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs M\\\/S on 11 November, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Commissioner vs M\/S on 11 November, 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\/commissioner-vs-ms-on-11-november-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs M\/S on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-ms-on-11-november-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-02T01:24:18+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\/commissioner-vs-ms-on-11-november-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-ms-on-11-november-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs M\/S on 11 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-02T01:24:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-ms-on-11-november-2011"},"wordCount":1791,"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\/commissioner-vs-ms-on-11-november-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-ms-on-11-november-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-ms-on-11-november-2011","name":"Commissioner vs M\/S on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-02T01:24:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-ms-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-ms-on-11-november-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-ms-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs M\/S on 11 November, 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:\/\/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\/210711","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=210711"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210711\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=210711"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=210711"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=210711"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}