{"id":211938,"date":"1967-04-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-04-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-supplies-disposals-vs-member-board-of-revenue-west-on-24-april-1967"},"modified":"2019-02-03T17:07:51","modified_gmt":"2019-02-03T11:37:51","slug":"director-of-supplies-disposals-vs-member-board-of-revenue-west-on-24-april-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-supplies-disposals-vs-member-board-of-revenue-west-on-24-april-1967","title":{"rendered":"Director Of Supplies & Disposals, … vs Member, Board Of Revenue, West … on 24 April, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Director Of Supplies & Disposals, … vs Member, Board Of Revenue, West … on 24 April, 1967<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1826, \t\t 1967 SCR (3) 778<\/div>\n
Author: S C.<\/div>\n
Bench: Shah, J.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDIRECTOR OF SUPPLIES & DISPOSALS, CALCUTTA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, WEST BENGAL,CALCUTTA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n24\/04\/1967\n\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nSIKRI, S.M.\nRAMASWAMI, V.\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR 1826\t\t  1967 SCR  (3) 778\n\n\nACT:\nBengal Finance (Sales-tax) Act (6 of 1941), s.\t2(c)-Dealer-\nCentral\t Government  disposing of  surplus  war\t material-If\nliable to sales-tax as dealer.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nSection\t 2(c)  of the Bengal Finance (Sales-tax)  Act,\t1941\ndefines a \"dealer\" as meaning any person who carries on\t the\nbusiness  of selling goods in West Bengal and  as  including\nthe Government.\t The appellant was a widespread Organisation\nof  the\t Government  of India set up  for  the\tdisposal  of\nsurplus American war equipment which included goods of at\ndiversity  and which 'had been taken over by the  Government\nof   India  after the Second World War.\t The  Government  of\nIndia received the  equipment free of cost.  A part  of\t the\nequipment was appropriated    by the Government of India  to\ntheir  own  use,  some\tequipment  was\tsold  to  the  State\nGovernments  and other autonomous bodies, and the  rest\t was\nsold to the public.  The sales were spread over a number  of\nyears and goods of the value of several lakhs had been\tsold\nin  auctions  held from time to time  after  advertising  in\nnewspapers.\nOn  the\t question whether the appellant was a  \"dealer\"\t and\ntherefore liable to pay sales-tax,\nHELD  : (Per Sikri and Ramaswami JJ.) : In disposing of\t the\ngoods  the  appellant was not carrying on  the\tbusiness  of\nselling\t goods,\t and  therefore, the  appellant\t was  not  a\n\"dealer\" within the meaning of s. 2(c) of the Act, and,\t the\ntransactions  of sale were not liable to be taxed under\t the\nAct.  The appellant was not selling the goods for profit but\nwas  merely  disposing\tthem of by  way\t of  realisation  of\ncapital. [786 B-D]\nCommissioner of Taxes v. British Australian Wool Realisation\nAssociation, [1931].A.C. 224 (P.C.) applied.\nState  of  Andhra  Pradesh v. M\/s.  Abdul  Bakshi  &  Bros.,<\/a>\n[1964]\t7  S.C.R.  664; 15 S.T.C. 644 (S.C.)  and  State  of\nGujarat '  v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd., [1967] 1 S.C.R.\n618; 19 S.T.C. 1 (S.C.), referred to.\nPer  Shah  J. (dissenting) : It could be inferred  from\t the\ntotality of circumstances that the appellant was not  merely\nrealising  capital,  but was carrying on business,  and\t was\ntherefore a dealer within the meaning of s. 2(c) of the\t Act\nand liable to he assessed to sales-tax. [780 A, H]\nIt  cannot  be\tsaid that because the  Government  of  India\nreceived  the equipment free, of cost it could not set up  a\nbusiness  to  dispose  of  that\t equipment.   There  was  an\norganised  course of activity which was systematic and\twith\nthe  set purpose of making profit and the tests\t of  volume.\nfrequency,  continuity\tand  system  generally\tapplied\t for\ndeciding whether there was an intention to carry on business\nwere also satisfied. [779 G-H; 780 F-G]\nNirain Swadeshi Mills v. Commissioner of Excess Profit\tTax,<\/a>\n26  I.T.R. 765 (S.C.) and State of Andhra Pradesh  v.  Abdul\nBakshi\t& Bros.,<\/a> [19641 7 S.C.R. 664; 15 S.T.C.\t 644  (S.C.)\nreferred to.\n 779\nCommissioner of Taxes v. British Australian Wool Realisation\nAssociation  Ltd.  [1931]  A. C. 224  (P.C.)  explained\t and\ndistinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 616 of 1966.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nNovember  26, 1964 of the Calcutta High Court in  Sales\t Tax
\nReference No. 4 of 1962.\n<\/p>\n
R.   Ganapathy Iyer, V. D. Mahajan and S. P. Nayyar, for the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
B.  Sen, P. K. Chatterjee, G. S. Chatterjee for P. K.  Bose,
\nfor the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
SHAH  J.  delivered a dissenting Opinion.  The\tJudgment  of
\nSIKRI and RAMASWAMI, JJ. was delivered by RAMASWAMI J.
\nShah,  J.  I  regret my inability to  agree  with  the\tview
\nexpressed by Ramaswami, J.\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 2(c) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax)\t Act,  1941,
\ndefines\t a “dealer” as meaning “‘any person who\t carries  on
\nthe
\nbusiness  of selling goods in-West Bengal and  as  including
\nthe Government.”\n<\/p>\n
The   Government  of  India  set  up  an  organisation\t the
\nDirectorate    of   Disposals\t(United\t  States    Transfer
\nDirectorate)-to dispose of war equipment taken over by\tthem
\nfrom the American forces after the Second World War.  This
\nOrganisation had severalbranches under its control. A  part
\nof the equipment was appropriated by the Government of India
\nto  their  own use; some equipment was, sold  to  the  State
\nGovernments and other autonomousbodies; and the rest  was
\nsold to the public. The taxing authorities held\t that  the
\nDirectorate was a dealer within the meaning of theBengal
\nFinance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and the High Court ofCalcutta
\nin a reference made under S. 21(3) agreed with that view.
\nIt is common, ground that the Government of India  paid
\nnoconsideration for acquiring the equipment; they  merely
\nset up an Organisation to dispose of the equipment.  It
\nis not, and cannotbe  argued that because the\tGovernment
\nof India received theequipment free of cost it could not
\nset up a business to disposeof that equipment. An owner of
\ngoods may commence business inthose goods by converting
\nthem into stock-in-trade of his business.The sales  made
\nby the Government of India through the Directorate were\t not
\ncasual\t:  they\t were spread over a  number  of\t years.\t The
\nequipment  included  goods  of great  diversity\t which\twere
\ndisposed of with the help of a widespread Organisation.\t The
\ngoods  offered\tfor  sale  were\t frequently  advertised\t  in
\nnewspapers and
\n780<\/span>
\nauctions  were\theld from time to time to dispose  of  the
\ngoods.\t Was the Government of India, in entering upon\tthis
\nactivity  merely  realizing capital or was  it\tcarrying  on
\nbusiness in the American surplus war equipment ?
\nThis  Court observed in The State of Andhra Pradesh  v.\t If.
\nAbdul,Bakshi and Bros,.<\/a>(1)
\n\t       “The expression ‘business’ though extensively
\n\t      used  is\ta  word of  indefinite\timport.\t  In
\n\t      taxing statutes it is used in the sense of  an
\n\t      occupation,  or profession which occupies\t the
\n\t      time,  attention and labour of a person,\tnor-
\n\t      mally  with the object of making\tprofit.\t  To
\n\t      regard an activity as business there must be a
\n\t      course of dealings, either actually  continued
\n\t      or contemplated to be continued with a profit,
\n\t      motive, and, not for sport or pleasure.”
\nIn   Narain  Swadeshi  Weaving\tMills  v.  Commissioner\t  of
\nExcess\tProfits Tax<\/a>(2), Das, J., delivering the judgment  of
\nthe Court      observed
\n\t      “The  word  ‘business’  connotes\tsome   real,
\n\t      substantial and systematic or organised course
\n\t      of activity or  conduct with a set purpose.”
\n     An\t owner of goods may dispose of his property  in\t one
\nlot or\t  from\ttime  to time in different lots.  By  merely
\nrealizing the value\tof a capital asset, the owner  does
\nnot become a dealer. Where,   however,\t he   sets   up\t  an
\norganisation a substantial and systematic    course\t  of
\nactivity-to sell the goods with a profit motive, he may\t    in
\nthe  light of other circumstances be deemed to have  entered
\ninto an\t activity  in the nature of business or\t trade.\t The
\nline between   the two classes of case is thin and sometimes
\nmay be blurred. But in\tthe present case, it cannot be\tsaid
\nthat the activity undertaken  by the Government of India for
\ndisposal of the American surplus   war equipment was, merely
\nan activity of the nature of realization     of\t    capital.
\nThere was an organised course of activity, it was systematic
\nand it, was with a set purpose of making profit. The   tests
\nof  frequency,\tcontinuity and system  which  are  generally
\nemployed in determining whether an activity for the disposal
\nof   goods owned  by a person indicates\t an  intention\tto
\ncarry  on business are satisfied in this me.  The  inference
\ndoes  not  arise  merely from the  existence  of  a  selling
\nOrganisation or systematic  sales, but from the totality  of
\ncircumstances.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t Commissioner  of Taxes v. British  Australian\tWool
\nRealization  Association Limited($), the Judicial  Committee
\nwas called
\n(1) 15 S. T. C., 644.\n<\/p>\n
(3) [1931] A. C. 224.26 1. T. R. 765.\n<\/p>\n
 781<\/span><\/p>\n
upon to consider whether surplus resulting from sale of wool
\naquired for the purpose of the First World War was  exigible
\nto,, income-tax under the Income Tax Act, 1915 (Victoria;  6
\nGeo. 5 No. 2668).  The Judicial Committee agreeing with\t the
\nSupreme Court of Victoria held that the sale of surplus wool
\nmerely resulted in realisation of capital assets and no part
\nof  it was income chargeable to tax.  The  assessee  Company
\nwas  incorporated for the purpose of selling  surplus.\twool
\noriginally,  acquire  during  the,  war.   The\tCommonwealth
\nGovernment  of\tAustralia  transferred to  the\tCompany\t its
\nundivided  half\t of the Australian wool, and  its  share  of
\nprofits ‘already realised, in, consideration of the issue of
\npriority  wool\tcertificates  and fully\t paid  Shares.\t The
\nCompany\t also  agreed  to  sell on  behalf  of\tthe  British
\nGovernment  the\t rest  of the wool for\ta  commission.\t The
\nproceeds  of sale of the half share of the  Australian\twool
\nexceeded  the  cost at which., it had been  taken  into\t the
\nbooks  of the Company.\tAfter the priority woo\tcertificates
\nwere redeemed, and the whole of the capital credited as paid
\non the shares was paid off, a large surplus remained in\t the
\nhands  of the Company.\t‘The Supreme Court of Victoria\theld
\nthat  the  surplus proceeds of the sale did not\t arise\tfrom
\ntrade,\tbut  were  realization of capital  assets  and\twere
\ntherefore  not taxable under the Income Tax Act,  1915,\t and
\nwith  that the Judicial Committee agreed.   The\t transaction
\nwas  unusual.  Vast quantities of wool had accumulated\tboth
\nin  the\t hands\tof  the\t British  Government  and  of\tthe.
\nCommonwealth Government: they had to be realized or  wasted.
\nIt  was of vital interest to the Commonwealth  of  Australia
\nthat the realization of surplus wool should not be conducted
\nso  as to destroy the market for the current production:  it
\nwas also essential that the operation of realization  should
\nbe conducted with due regard to the legitimate interests  of
\nthe  British  consumers With a view to devise  an  effective
\nmachinery  to serve ‘this twin objective, the Company  which
\nwas to act as a common agency for disposal of ‘surplus\twool
\nin  the\t hands\tof the two Governments was  set\t up  with  a
\nnominal\t capital.  The constitution of the Company  was\t the
\ndirect result of an agreement between the two Governments, ‘
\nand the attainment of the Government purposes was secured by
\nagreements  which the Company- entered- into with,  the\t two
\nGovernments.   The Government of the  Commonwealth  assigned
\nthe profits accrued from sales of surplus Australian wool in
\nconsideration\tof  fully  paid\t up  shares   and   priority
\ncertificates  to  be issued in the names  of  ‘persons\tor,
\nbodies nominated by the Commonwealth Government.  There\t was
\na separate agreement between the British Government and\t the
\nCompany\t about\tthe  disposal  of  wool\t belonging  to\tthat
\nGovernment.  Interest of the Commonwealth Government in\t the
\nsurplus\t  wool\ta  sum\texceeding’  pound  6   million\t was
\ntransferred  to the Company, and it became an instrument  of
\nconversion  of the whole of the surplus wool still,  unsold.
\n‘For the share of the Commonwealth Government in the
\n782<\/span>
\nwool  it became a medium of distribution of the net  surplus
\namongst\t the original suppliers of wool.  The  Company\talso
\ntook  over the organization under which the  realization  of
\nwool  was proceeding for over two years before it  was.\t set
\nup,  “and a realization of surplus wool whose sole  or\teven
\nprimary purpose was the acquisition of gain, whether by\t the
\nimperial  Government  in respect of one moiety,\t or  by\t the
\nAssociation  or\t its members in respect of  the other  was
\nnever again entertained”.  The Judicial Committee observed
\nat p. 249
\n\t      “.  .  . . in truth and in fact  the  Associa-\n<\/p>\n
\t      tion’s  interest in the wool always was  fixed
\n\t      capital  and  never was  circulating  capital.
\n\t      Its  purpose  with  reference  to\t it  was  to
\n\t      realize  the  asset,, having done so  to\tdis-
\n\t      tribute  the proceeds among these entiled\t and
\n\t      then itself, to disappear.”\n<\/p>\n
\t       The  Judicial Committee again observed at  p.\n<\/p>\n
\t      252<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      “All that its British board did was to utilize
\n\t      on  its  behalf the organization\tunder  which
\n\t      they  had\t acted when, as a committee  of\t the
\n\t      Ministry\tof Munitions, they were\t engaged  in
\n\t      the same task of realization.  In other
\n\t      words,  in their Lordships’ judgment there  is
\n\t      in the special case neither a finding, nor any
\n\t      statement\t of facts warranting the  conclusion
\n\t      that  this Association ever indulged  in.\t any
\n\t      activity except that of realization which,  as
\n\t      Rowlatt, J., has said, ‘is not a trade.\tUpon
\n\t      the  facts stated, any other conclusion  would
\n\t      be  tantamount  to saying that  a\t realization
\n\t      such as that effected by the Association\tmust
\n\t      be  a  trade  because  of\t the  bringing\tinto
\n\t      existence\t of  a\tselling\t organization,\tmade
\n\t      necessary only by reason of the mere magnitude
\n\t      of  the  realizations proposition\t not  to  be
\n\t      entertained.”\n<\/p>\n
I have stated the facts of the case before the Judicial Com-
\nmittee\tand  the reasoning of the Board in  some  detail  to
\nindicate that the case bears little analogy with the case we
\nare dealing with.  I am unable to hold that a case which has
\nbeen  decided on its very special facts can be deemed to  be
\nan  authority governing the present.  The  decision  of’-the
\nJudicial  Committee enunciates no new principle\t it  applies
\nsettled principles to a very unusual set of facts.
\nThere  is  no  finding by the Sales Tax\t Tribunal  that\t the
\nDirectorate  was only set up for realization of the  surplus
\nequipment, and the High Court has declined to raise any such
\ninference.   The  High\t‘Court has clearly  found  that\t the
\nDirectorate   of  Disposals  (the  United  States   Transfer
\nDirectorate) was carrying on business
\n 783<\/span>
\nwithin\tthe meaning of S. 2(c) of the Bengal Finance  (Sales
\nTax)  Act, 1941.  It is difficult to upset that\t finding  of
\nthe High Court in an appeal with special leave, and to\thold
\nthat  on the facts established the Directorate of  Disposals
\nwas not I carrying on business of selling goods.
\nThe appeal must therefore fail.\n<\/p>\n
Ramswami, J. This appeal is brought, by special leave,\tfrom
\nthe  judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated November\t 26,
\n1964  in  a reference under S. 21(3) of the  Bengal  Finance
\n(Sales\tTax) Act, 1941 (Bengal Act VI of 1941),\t hereinafter
\nreferred to as the ‘Act’.\n<\/p>\n
The Director of Disposals, the United States Transfer Direc-
\ntorate,\t is an organisation of the Government of India.\t  It
\nis  responsible\t for the disposal of  surplus  American\t war
\nequipment  which  had been taken over by the  Government  of
\nIndia-.\t  When the equipment was substantially disposed\t of,
\nits  work  was reduced to a great extent  and  therefore  it
\nmerged\t with  the  office  of\tthe  Regional\tCommissioner
\n(Disposals)  on January 11, 1950.  Later on the\t Supply\t and
\nDisposal Services of the Government of India were merged and
\nthe department was redesignated as Directorate of Supplies &
\nDisposals.  The function of this directorate was to  dispose
\nof  surplus  goods, and to purchase goods on behalf  of\t the
\nGovernment  of India.  The Director of supplies &  Disposals
\n(hereinafter called the appellant’) was asked by the  Sales-
\ntax  officials of the West Bengal Government to get  himself
\nregistered  as\ta  ‘dealer’ under the  Act.   The  appellant
\ndeclined to do so, contending that he was not a ‘dealer’ and
\nthat  he  was  not engaged in the  business  of\t buying\t and
\nselling and was, therefore not liable to pay any sales-tax,
\nbut the contention of the appellant was overruled and he was
\nassessed  to sales-tax for three periods from April 1,\t1949
\nuntil May 31, 1951.  The appellant took the matter in appeal
\nto the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Calcutta
\nwho  modified  the orders of assessment,  holding  that\t the
\nsupplies  made\tby the appellant were liable,  to  be  taxed
\nexcept\tthose which were proved to be mere transfers to\t its
\nsister\t departments  in  the  Government  of  India.\t The
\nappellant  filed revision petitions to the  Commissioner  of
\nCommercial  Taxes  and to the Board of\tRevenue,  but  these
\npetitions  were dismissed.  As directed by the High  Court,
\nthe Board of Revenue referred the following question of law-
\nfor the decision of the High Court under S. 21(3) of the Act
\n\t      “Whether\t the   Director\t of   Supplies\t and
\n\t      Disposals, United States Transfer, Directorate
\n\t      having his office situated at No. 6, Esplanade
\n\t      East,  Calcutta,\tcarries on the\tbusiness  of
\n\t      selling goods in West Bengal and is, there-\n<\/p>\n
\t      784<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      fore,  a\t‘Dealer’,  within  the\tmeaning\t  of
\n\t      section  2 (c) of the Bengal Finance,  (Sales,
\n\t      Tax) Act, 1941
\nBy  its\t judgment dated November 26, 1964,  the\t High  Court
\nanswered  the  question in the affirmative and\tagainst\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
The question to be considered in this appeal is whether\t the
\nappellant is a ‘dealer’ within the meaning of s. 2(c) of the
\nAct  defining a ‘dealer’ as “any person who carries  on\t the
\nbusiness  of selling-goods in West Bengal and  as  including
\nthe  Government.  It was argued on behalf of  the  appellant
\nthat  the  surplus  material  was  left\t in  India  at\t the
\nconclusion of the last war by the American Government to  be
\ndealt  with by the Government of India just as\tit  pleased.
\nThe  Government could have used the goods itself or  made  a
\ngift  of them to others or thrown them away as scrap.  As  a
\nmatter\tof  fact,  it was pointed out  that  a\tconsiderable
\nportion\t of the surplus material was used by the  Government
\nitself and the balance instead of being thrown away was sold
\nto  the\t public, and that selling of such material  did\t not
\ninvolve\t carrying on of a ‘business’ and the  appellant\t was
\ntherefore not liable to be taxed as a ‘dealer’ under S. 2(c)
\nof  the\t Act.  The opposite view-point was  put\t forward  on
\nbehalf\tof  the respondent.  It was submitted  that  surplus
\nmaterial  was sold in a series of transactions and  good  of
\nthe  value  of several lakhs had been sold and there  was  a
\nprofit\tmotive\tbehind the transactions.  It  was  contended
\nthat  the sales were not casual but they were spread over  a
\nnumber\tof years and the surplus ‘Lyood’s were\tdisposed  of
\nwith the help, of a widespread organization It was also said
\nthat  the goods which were offered for sale were  advertised
\nin  the newspapers and auctions were also held from time  to
\ntime.\tAs  pointed  out by this Court in  State  of  Andhra
\nPradesh\t v. M\/s Abdul Bakshi and Bros.<\/a>(1) a person to  be  a
\ndealer must be engaged in the business of buying or selling
\nor supplying goods.\t The\t      expression  “business”
\nthough extensively used in taxing    statutes, is a word  of
\nindefinite import.  In tasking statutes,     it\t is used  in
\nthe sense of an occupation, or profession which occupies the
\ntime,,\tattention and labour of a person, normally with\t the
\nobject of making profit.  To regard an activity as  business
\nthere  must  be\t a  course  of\tdealings,  either   actually
\ncontinued  or contemplated. to be continued with  a  profit-
\nmotive; there must be some real and systematic or  organised
\ncourse\tof activity or conduct with a set purpose of  making
\nprofit.\t  To infer from a course of transactions that it  is
\nintended thereby to carry on business ordinarily there\tmust
\nexist  the characteristics of volume, frequency,  continuity
\nand system indicating an intention to continue the  activity
\nof  carrying  on  the transactions for\ta  profit.   But  no
\nsingle, test  or,-  group of tests  is’\t decisive  of  the
\nintention to carry on the business.  It must be decided\t in
\nthe circumstances of
\n(1)  15 S.T.c. 644.\n<\/p>\n
 785<\/span><\/p>\n
each  particular case whether an inference could  be  raised
\nthat the assessee is carrying on the, business of purchasing
\nor selling of goods within the meaning of the statute.
\nIn  a recent decision of this Court in The State of  Gujarat
\nV.  Raipur  Manufacturing Co. Ltd.<\/a>(1)  the  question  arose.
\nwhether\t  a  company  which  carried  on  the  business\t  of
\nmanufacturing  and  selling cotton textiles  was  liable  to
\nsales-tax when disposing of old’ and discarded items such as
\nstores,\t machinery,  iron scrap, cans boxes,  cotton  ropes,
\nrags, etc.  It was held that the mere fact that the sales of
\nthe items were frequent and their volume, was large, did not
\nlead  to the presumption that when the goods  were  acquired
\nthere  was  an intention to carry on the business  in  these
\ndiscarded materials, and a person who sold goods which\tWere
\nunserviceable  or  unsuitable, for his business did  not  on
\nthat  account become a dealer in those goods, unless he\t had
\nan  intention  to carry on the business of  selling  those
\ngoods.\t At page 7 of the Report Shah, J. speaking  for\t the
\nCourt, observed as follows
\n\t      “It   is\tclear  from  these  cases  that\t  to
\n\t      attribute\t an intention to, carry on  business
\n\t      of  selling goods it is, not  sufficient\tthat
\n\t      the assessee was carrying on business in\tsome
\n\t      commodity\t and  he. disposes of  for  a  price
\n\t      articles discarded, surplus or  unserviceable.
\n\t      It  was urged however, on behalf of the  State
\n\t      that where a dealer with a view to reduce\t the
\n\t      cost  of production disposed of  unserviceable
\n\t      articles used in the manufacture of goods\t and
\n\t      credits the price received in his accounts, he
\n\t      must be\t deemed to have a  profit-motive,for
\n\t      it  would be uneconomical for the business  to
\n\t      store unserviceable articles and to survive as
\n\t      an  economic  unit.  But the question  is:  of
\n\t      intention to carry on business of selling\t any
\n\t      particular  class of goods.  Undoubtedly\tfrom
\n\t      the   frequency,\t volume,   continuity\t and
\n\t      regularity  of transactions carred on  with  a
\n\t      profit-motive,  an inference that it  was\t in-
\n\t      tended  to carry on business in the  commodity
\n\t      may  arise.   But\t it does  not  arise  merely
\n\t      because\tthe  price  received  by   sale\t  of
\n\t      discarded\t goods enters the accounts  of\tthe,
\n\t      trader and may on an overall view enhance\t his
\n\t      total  profit,- or indirectly reduce the\tcost
\n\t      of production goods in the business of selling
\n\t      in which he is engaged.  An attempt to realize
\n\t      price  by\t sale of  surplus  unserviceable  or
\n\t      discarded\t goods does not necessarily lead  to
\n\t      an inference that business is intended- to  be
\n\t      carried  on in those goods, and the-fact\tthat
\n\t      unserviceable goods are-sold and not stored so
\n\t      that  badly needed space is available for\t the
\n\t      business\tof the assessee also does not,\tlead
\n\t      to
\n(1)  19 S.T.C 1.\n<\/p>\n
786<\/span><\/p>\n
the inference that business is intended to be carried on  in
\nselling those goods.  ”\n<\/p>\n
Having\texamined  the facts found by the High Court  in\t the
\npresent\t case, we are satisfied that the appellant  was\t not
\ncarrying  on the business of buying or selling goods  within
\nthe meaning of S. 2 (c) of the Act.  It is not disputed that
\nlarge  quantities  of war material were handed over  to\t the
\nGovernment  of India under the provisions of  the  Indo-U.S.
\nagreement for the prosecution of the war.  A part of the war
\nmaterial was used by the Government for defence and military
\nactivities  and\t there\twas a huge  surplus  left  with\t the
\nGovernment  of India which was either no longer\t useful or
\nhad  become  obsolete.\t We  are of  the opinion  that\tin
\ndisposing  ,of this surplus war material the  appellant\t was
\nnot  carrying  on  the ,business of selling  goods  and\t the
\ntransactions  of sale were not liable to be taxed under\t the
\nprovisions  of the Act.\t In our opinion, the  appellant\t was
\nnot  selling  surplus  goods for profit but  he\t was  merely
\ndisposing of the surplus material by way of realisation\t and the
\ntransactions  were  therefore  not  taxable  as\t sales
\nfalling within the provisions of the Act.  The view that  we
\nhave expressed is borne out by the decision of the  Judicial
\nCommittee  in  Commissioner of Taxes v.\t British  Australian
\nWool   Realization  Association\t Limited(1)  in\t which\t the
\nrespondent-company  was\t incorporated in  1920\tin  Victoria
\npursuant   to\tan  agreement  between\tthe   Imperial\t and
\nCommonwealth  Governments,  for the purpose of\tselling\t the
\nundisposed of surplus of wool acquired for the war, and dis-
\ntributing the proceeds.\t The Commonwealth Government  trans-
\nferred\tto the company its undivided half of the  Australian
\nwool  and in cash its share of profits already realized,  in
\nconsideration of the issue of priority wool certificates and
\nfully-paid shares to its nominees, the wool suppliers.\t The
\ncompany also agreed with the Imperial Government to sell  on
\nits  behalf  for  a commission all the\trest  of  the  wool,
\nwhether\t Australian or not.  The wool was :all\tsold  during
\nthe,years 1921 to 1924; the company had no other dealings in
\nwool.  The proceeds of the half share of the Australian wool
\nlargely exceeded the sum at which it had been taken into the
\nbooks  of the company.\tThe priority wool certificates\twere
\nredeemed,  and the whole of the capital credited as paid  on
\nthe shares was paid off under successive schemes  sanctioned
\nby the Court; there remained a large surplus in the hands of
\nthe  liquidator of the company.\t Assessments were made\tupon
\nthe company under the Income Tax Act, 1915, of Victoria,  in
\nrespect\t of proportions of the surplus proceeds of sale\t and
\nof  the commission ,earned.  The company  raised  objections
\nthereto,  and a special ,case was stated for the opinion  of
\nthe  Supreme Court of Victoria which held that\tthe  surplus
\nproceeds  of  sale  were  not a\t result\t of  the  trade\t but
\nrealization of capital assets and were therefore not
\n(1)  [1931] A.C. 224.\n<\/p>\n
 7 8 7
\ntaxable under the Act.\tThe judgment of the Supreme Court of
\n,Victoria was affirmed by the Judicial Committee which\theld
\nthat  the  surplus resulted merely from the  realisation  of
\ncapital\t asset&\t and  therefore no part\t of  it\t was  income
\nchargeable to tax.  At page 250\t   of\tthe   Report,\tLord
\nBlanesburgh stated as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “To  their  Lordships,  therefore,  there\t  is
\n\t      disclosed, on their view of the facts here,  a
\n\t      case   entirely  within  the  terms   of\t the
\n\t      following\t words\tfrom the judgment  in  Cali-
\n\t      fornian  Copper Syndicate v.  Harris  [(1904)5
\n\t      Tax  Cas. 159, 165], which have since been  so
\n\t      often cited with approval. It is quite a\twell
\n\t      settled principle in dealing with questions of
\n\t      assessment of income tax, that where the owner
\n\t      of  an ordinary investment chooses to  realise
\n\t      it, and obtains a greater price for it than he
\n\t      originally acquired it at, the enhanced  price
\n\t      is  not  profit…….. assessable  to  income
\n\t      tax.’ Equally applicable, in the view of their
\n\t      Lordships,  are the words of Lord\t Dunedin  in
\n\t      Commissioner  of\tTaxes  v.  Melbourne   Trust
\n\t      [(1914) A.C. 1001, 1009], where he says :\t ‘If
\n\t      the  liquidator of one of the banks had  made,
\n\t      an estimate of the various assets held by\t him
\n\t      for  realization, and then on realization\t had
\n\t      obtained more than that estimate, such surplus
\n\t      would  not  have\tbeen  profit  assessable  to
\n\t      income tax.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Lord Blanesburgh further observed at page\t 252
\n\t      of the Report
\n\t      “All that its British board did was to utilize
\n\t      on  its  behalf the organization\tunder  which
\n\t      they  had\t acted when, as a committee  of\t the
\n\t      Ministry\tof Munitions, they were\t engaged  in
\n\t      the same task of realization.  In other words,
\n\t      in  their Lordships’ judgment there is in\t the
\n\t      special  case  neither  a\t finding,  nor\t any
\n\t      statement\t of facts warranting the  conclusion
\n\t      that  this  Association ever indulged  in\t any
\n\t      activity except that of realization which,  as
\n\t      Rowlatt,\tJ. has said, ‘is not a trade.’\tUpon
\n\t      the  facts stated, any other conclusion  would
\n\t      be  tantamount  to saying that  a\t realization
\n\t      such as that effected by the Association\tmust
\n\t      be  a  trade  because  of\t the  bringing\tinto
\n\t      existence\t of  a\tselling\t organization\tmade
\n\t      necessary only by reason of the mere magnitude
\n\t      of  the  realization-a proposition not  to  be
\n\t      entertained.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  material  facts of this case are  closely\tparallel  to
\nthose  in  the\tpresent case and it must be  held  that\t the
\nappellant was not carrying on the business of selling  goods
\nand  was  not a “dealer” within the meaning  of\t the  Bengal
\nFinance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (Bengal Act VI of 1941).\n<\/p>\n
788<\/span><\/p>\n
For  these reasons we hold that the appellant did not  carry
\non  the\t business  of  selling.goods  in  West\tBengal\t and
\ntherefore was not a dealer within the meaning of S. 2 (c) of
\nthe  Act and the question referred to the High Court.  under
\ns, 21-(3) of the Act must be answered in the negative and in
\nfavour\tof  the\t appellant.  We accordingly  set  aside\t the
\njudgment of the High Court dated November 26, 1964 and allow
\nthis appeal with costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t   ORDER
\nIn accordance with the opinion of the majority, this  appeal
\nis allowed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\n<\/p>\n
789<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Director Of Supplies & Disposals, … vs Member, Board Of Revenue, West … on 24 April, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1826, 1967 SCR (3) 778 Author: S C. Bench: Shah, J.C. PETITIONER: DIRECTOR OF SUPPLIES & DISPOSALS, CALCUTTA Vs. RESPONDENT: MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, WEST BENGAL,CALCUTTA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/04\/1967 […]<\/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-211938","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDirector Of Supplies & Disposals, ... vs Member, Board Of Revenue, West ... on 24 April, 1967 - 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\/director-of-supplies-disposals-vs-member-board-of-revenue-west-on-24-april-1967\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Director Of Supplies & Disposals, ... vs Member, Board Of Revenue, West ... on 24 April, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-supplies-disposals-vs-member-board-of-revenue-west-on-24-april-1967\" \/>\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=\"1967-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-03T11:37:51+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-of-supplies-disposals-vs-member-board-of-revenue-west-on-24-april-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-of-supplies-disposals-vs-member-board-of-revenue-west-on-24-april-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Director Of Supplies & Disposals, … vs Member, Board Of Revenue, West … on 24 April, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-03T11:37:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-of-supplies-disposals-vs-member-board-of-revenue-west-on-24-april-1967\"},\"wordCount\":4132,\"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\\\/director-of-supplies-disposals-vs-member-board-of-revenue-west-on-24-april-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-of-supplies-disposals-vs-member-board-of-revenue-west-on-24-april-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-of-supplies-disposals-vs-member-board-of-revenue-west-on-24-april-1967\",\"name\":\"Director Of Supplies & Disposals, ... vs Member, Board Of Revenue, West ... on 24 April, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-03T11:37:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-of-supplies-disposals-vs-member-board-of-revenue-west-on-24-april-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-of-supplies-disposals-vs-member-board-of-revenue-west-on-24-april-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/director-of-supplies-disposals-vs-member-board-of-revenue-west-on-24-april-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Director Of Supplies & Disposals, … vs Member, Board Of Revenue, West … on 24 April, 1967\"}]},{\"@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":"Director Of Supplies & Disposals, ... vs Member, Board Of Revenue, West ... on 24 April, 1967 - 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\/director-of-supplies-disposals-vs-member-board-of-revenue-west-on-24-april-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Director Of Supplies & Disposals, ... vs Member, Board Of Revenue, West ... on 24 April, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-supplies-disposals-vs-member-board-of-revenue-west-on-24-april-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-03T11:37:51+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-supplies-disposals-vs-member-board-of-revenue-west-on-24-april-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-supplies-disposals-vs-member-board-of-revenue-west-on-24-april-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Director Of Supplies & Disposals, … vs Member, Board Of Revenue, West … on 24 April, 1967","datePublished":"1967-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-03T11:37:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-supplies-disposals-vs-member-board-of-revenue-west-on-24-april-1967"},"wordCount":4132,"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\/director-of-supplies-disposals-vs-member-board-of-revenue-west-on-24-april-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-supplies-disposals-vs-member-board-of-revenue-west-on-24-april-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-supplies-disposals-vs-member-board-of-revenue-west-on-24-april-1967","name":"Director Of Supplies & Disposals, ... vs Member, Board Of Revenue, West ... on 24 April, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-03T11:37:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-supplies-disposals-vs-member-board-of-revenue-west-on-24-april-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-supplies-disposals-vs-member-board-of-revenue-west-on-24-april-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/director-of-supplies-disposals-vs-member-board-of-revenue-west-on-24-april-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Director Of Supplies & Disposals, … vs Member, Board Of Revenue, West … on 24 April, 1967"}]},{"@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\/211938","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=211938"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211938\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=211938"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=211938"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=211938"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}