{"id":213360,"date":"2008-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hoshiarpur-roller-flour-mills-vs-income-tax-officer-on-29-september-2008"},"modified":"2016-08-23T09:40:53","modified_gmt":"2016-08-23T04:10:53","slug":"ms-hoshiarpur-roller-flour-mills-vs-income-tax-officer-on-29-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hoshiarpur-roller-flour-mills-vs-income-tax-officer-on-29-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Hoshiarpur Roller Flour Mills vs Income Tax Officer on 29 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S Hoshiarpur Roller Flour Mills vs Income Tax Officer on 29 September, 2008<\/div>\n
CRIMINAL MISC.M NO.6621 OF 2007                                    :{ 1 }:\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                    DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 29, 2008\n\n             M\/s Hoshiarpur Roller Flour Mills, Hoshiarpur and others\n\n                                                             .....Petitioners\n\n                                         VERSUS\n\n             Income Tax Officer, Gurdaspur\n\n                                                              ....Respondent\n\n\n\nCORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH\n\n1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?\n2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n\n\n\nPRESENT:             Mr. K. S. Dadwal, Advocate,\n                     for the petitioners.\n\n                     Ms. Navinder K. Singh,\n                     Senior Central Govt. Standing Counsel.\n\n                                  ****\n\nRANJIT SINGH, J.\n<\/pre>\n
             The petitioners seek quashing of complaint dated<\/p>\n
28.3.2006 (Annexure P-6) whereby they have been summoned to<\/p>\n
face prosecution for offences under Sections 276C(1) and 277 of the<\/p>\n
Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”). Prayer is for quashing the<\/p>\n
subsequent proceedings also.\n<\/p>\n
             The petitioners have sought quashing of this complaint<\/p>\n
and the subsequent proceedings on the ground that criminal<\/p>\n
proceedings can not be continued against them as the adjudicating
\n CRIMINAL MISC.M NO.6621 OF 2007                           :{ 2 }:\n<\/p>\n
proceedings initiated under the Act have been decided on the basis<\/p>\n
of an agreed      or consented order, which would bar the criminal<\/p>\n
proceedings.      Submission is that it will not be fair to direct<\/p>\n
prosecution of the petitioners. Plea also is that summoning order   is<\/p>\n
cryptic and reflects non-application of mind and hence, can not be<\/p>\n
sustained.\n<\/p>\n
              I have perused the pleadings and the stand of the<\/p>\n
parties. While issuing notice of motion, this Court has noticed the<\/p>\n
contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that Appeal No.146 of<\/p>\n
2006 filed by the assessee is already pending before this Court.<\/p>\n
Placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Commissioner of<\/p>\n
Income Tax Vs. Bhopen Champak Lal Dalal, 2002 (2) RCR (Crl.)<\/p>\n
141, it was urged that till the proceedings in appeal are pending, the<\/p>\n
criminal proceedings against the petitioners are not to continue. The<\/p>\n
proceedings pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,<\/p>\n
Amritsar, were, thus, stayed.\n<\/p>\n
             Reply has been filed. Counsel for the parties heard.<\/p>\n
             Mr.K.S.Dadwal, counsel appearing for the petitioners, has<\/p>\n
first drawn my attention to Annexure P-2, which is an application<\/p>\n
given to Income-tax Officer, Ward I, Gurdaspur, by V.B.Aggarwal,<\/p>\n
Chartered Accountant, who was representing the petitioners. In the<\/p>\n
application, it is averred that the assessee has agreed for levy of<\/p>\n
penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and accordingly, assessee<\/p>\n
may be levied this penalty on the basis of discussions, which is<\/p>\n
stated to be due to negligence of the employees of the assessee. It<\/p>\n
is further mentioned in the application that the penalty levied be
\n CRIMINAL MISC.M NO.6621 OF 2007                          :{ 3 }:\n<\/p>\n
minimum on the tax payable by the assessee firm and after taking<\/p>\n
into consideration the replies filed in the course of assessment<\/p>\n
proceedings. It is categorically mentioned that the assessee has<\/p>\n
agreed for the levy of tax to buy peace of mind. On the basis of this<\/p>\n
admission, which the counsel now wants to term as “agreed” or<\/p>\n
“consented order”, penalty amounting to Rs.6,00,080\/- was levied.<\/p>\n
           Once this penalty is levied, the petitioners appear to have<\/p>\n
change of mind and filed an appeal against this levy of penalty before<\/p>\n
the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The said appeal was<\/p>\n
dismissed on the ground that the assessee had agreed for levy of<\/p>\n
penalty and, thus, they can not make any grievance against the said<\/p>\n
levy. While rejecting the appeal of the petitioners, reliance is placed<\/p>\n
on a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Banta Singh<\/p>\n
Kartar Singh     Vs.   CIT, 135 I.T.R. 239. Still not satisfied, the<\/p>\n
petitioners challenged the order without success before the Income-<\/p>\n
Tax Appellate Tribunal at Amritsar. Here again, they were non-suited<\/p>\n
basically on the ground that they had agreed for the penalty to be<\/p>\n
levied on them and hence, can not be heard to complain against the<\/p>\n
same. Despite these set backs, the petitioners still sought a<\/p>\n
reference by filing an appeal before this Court. The Division Bench of<\/p>\n
this Court on 5.2.2007, also declined the prayer of the petitioners on<\/p>\n
the ground that no substantial question of law warranting admission<\/p>\n
of the instant appeal would arise. Rather it is clearly held that the<\/p>\n
statement, which the petitioners made before the Income-tax<\/p>\n
authorities, would fall into the definition of “admission” as contained<\/p>\n
in Sections 17 and 18 of the Indian Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n
 CRIMINAL MISC.M NO.6621 OF 2007                          :{ 4 }:\n<\/p>\n
           It was pendency of this reference before this Court, which<\/p>\n
had mainly been referred and relied upon by counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioners at the time of issuance of notice of motion. The appeal<\/p>\n
and all remedies that are available to the petitioners have been<\/p>\n
declined on the ground that they had admitted\/confessed the evasion<\/p>\n
of tax and accordingly, penalty amounting to over Rs.6,00,000\/- was<\/p>\n
levied.\n<\/p>\n
           During the course of arguments, the counsel even could<\/p>\n
not clarify whether this penalty amount has been deposited or not.<\/p>\n
Counsel for the respondent-Department, however, stated that till<\/p>\n
21.8.2008, this penalty has even not been deposited. She, however,<\/p>\n
is not clear whether this penalty amount is deposited in the meantime<\/p>\n
or not. Be that as it may, the primary grievance of the petitioner as<\/p>\n
noticed at the time of issuance of notice of motion was the pendency<\/p>\n
of the appeal\/the reference before this Court. That reference has<\/p>\n
been declined by observing that no question of law arise in this case.<\/p>\n
I have not been able to appreciate the line of submissions persued<\/p>\n
by the counsel for the petitioners. Once the petitioners have failed in<\/p>\n
his departmental remedies and have agreed for penalty, they<\/p>\n
perhaps are in no position to plead for quashing the criminal<\/p>\n
proceedings against them on account of evasion of tax. Is it a<\/p>\n
genuine plea on the part of the counsel to read order of penalty to be<\/p>\n
consented\/agreed order or an attempt to ignore his admission or<\/p>\n
confession? The order, which the learned counsel for the petitioners<\/p>\n
wishes to read as a “consent” or “agreed” order, certainly can not be<\/p>\n
taken as an agreed\/consented order. It is a clear case of admission
\n CRIMINAL MISC.M NO.6621 OF 2007                         :{ 5 }:\n<\/p>\n
of the petitioners and the evasion of tax was admitted by them. On<\/p>\n
that basis, they were, thus, directed to pay a levy of over<\/p>\n
Rs.6,00,000\/- as a penalty due to their admission. The submissions<\/p>\n
that criminal prosecution can not continue against the petitioners is,<\/p>\n
thus, without any basis whatsoever. The petitioners appear to have<\/p>\n
cleverly got a notice issued by referring to the pendency of appeal<\/p>\n
before this Court and now are making an attempt to catch any straw<\/p>\n
to avoid their drowning. Nothing is seen in favour of the petitioners.<\/p>\n
They have failed to deposit the penalty imposed on them after<\/p>\n
passing of this order, which they      now wish to describe as an<\/p>\n
“agreed” or a “consented order”. They have cleverly avoided paying<\/p>\n
penalty and were also able to have stay of their criminal proceedings<\/p>\n
since February 2007. The prayer for quashing of these criminal<\/p>\n
proceedings certainly appears misconceived and misplaced.<\/p>\n
           The second limb of the submission made by learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioners that the order summoning the petitioners,<\/p>\n
(Annexure P-7), is a cryptic one, in my view, also is not made out.<\/p>\n
The counsel has drawn my attention to the case of Batra Finance<\/p>\n
Corporation and another       Vs.   Chief Judicial Magistrate and<\/p>\n
others, 1991 ITR 71, in support. In this case, the order summoning<\/p>\n
the petitioners was set-aside on the ground that the same is passed<\/p>\n
without application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the<\/p>\n
case. The order in the case of Batra Finance Corporation (supra)<\/p>\n
read as under:-\n<\/p>\n
           “Complaint has been presented today. It be registered.<\/p>\n
           Accused be summoned by bailable warrants in the sum of
\n CRIMINAL MISC.M NO.6621 OF 2007                          :{ 6 }:\n<\/p>\n
           Rs.3,000 for February 5, 1986.”\n<\/p>\n
           Obviously, the abovesaid order would clearly show a non-<\/p>\n
application of mind. Such is not the situation in the present case. The<\/p>\n
Chief Judicial Magistrate in this case has clearly held that this<\/p>\n
complaint has been filed in discharge of official duties, thus, the<\/p>\n
Magistrate had dispensed with the recording of preliminary evidence<\/p>\n
of the complainant as well as of his witnesses. The complainant also<\/p>\n
made a request for exemption from personal appearance. This was<\/p>\n
also allowed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has then recorded in the<\/p>\n
order that from the perusal of the complaint alongwith accompanying<\/p>\n
documents, sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused under<\/p>\n
Sections 276(1) and 277 of the Act were made out. This would be<\/p>\n
sufficient indication about the application of mind on his part. It may<\/p>\n
need a mention here that the case against the petitioners is based on<\/p>\n
their admission of the evasion of tax and this fact would alone be<\/p>\n
enough for issuing process. The impugned order is otherwise not<\/p>\n
cryptic, as can be said about the order, which was under challenge in<\/p>\n
the case of Batra Finance Corporation (supra). There is, thus, no<\/p>\n
case made out to interfere in the impugned order.<\/p>\n
           The present revision petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is<\/p>\n
totally without any merit and the same is dismissed.<\/p>\n
September 29,2008                         ( RANJIT SINGH )\nkhurmi                                         JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court M\/S Hoshiarpur Roller Flour Mills vs Income Tax Officer on 29 September, 2008 CRIMINAL MISC.M NO.6621 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 29, 2008 M\/s Hoshiarpur Roller Flour Mills, Hoshiarpur and others …..Petitioners VERSUS Income Tax Officer, Gurdaspur ….Respondent […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-213360","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Hoshiarpur Roller Flour Mills vs Income Tax Officer on 29 September, 2008 - 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\/ms-hoshiarpur-roller-flour-mills-vs-income-tax-officer-on-29-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Hoshiarpur Roller Flour Mills vs Income Tax Officer on 29 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hoshiarpur-roller-flour-mills-vs-income-tax-officer-on-29-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-23T04:10:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hoshiarpur-roller-flour-mills-vs-income-tax-officer-on-29-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hoshiarpur-roller-flour-mills-vs-income-tax-officer-on-29-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Hoshiarpur Roller Flour Mills vs Income Tax Officer on 29 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-23T04:10:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hoshiarpur-roller-flour-mills-vs-income-tax-officer-on-29-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1441,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hoshiarpur-roller-flour-mills-vs-income-tax-officer-on-29-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hoshiarpur-roller-flour-mills-vs-income-tax-officer-on-29-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hoshiarpur-roller-flour-mills-vs-income-tax-officer-on-29-september-2008\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Hoshiarpur Roller Flour Mills vs Income Tax Officer on 29 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-23T04:10:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hoshiarpur-roller-flour-mills-vs-income-tax-officer-on-29-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hoshiarpur-roller-flour-mills-vs-income-tax-officer-on-29-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-hoshiarpur-roller-flour-mills-vs-income-tax-officer-on-29-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Hoshiarpur Roller Flour Mills vs Income Tax Officer on 29 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S Hoshiarpur Roller Flour Mills vs Income Tax Officer on 29 September, 2008 - 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\/ms-hoshiarpur-roller-flour-mills-vs-income-tax-officer-on-29-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Hoshiarpur Roller Flour Mills vs Income Tax Officer on 29 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hoshiarpur-roller-flour-mills-vs-income-tax-officer-on-29-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-23T04:10:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hoshiarpur-roller-flour-mills-vs-income-tax-officer-on-29-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hoshiarpur-roller-flour-mills-vs-income-tax-officer-on-29-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Hoshiarpur Roller Flour Mills vs Income Tax Officer on 29 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-23T04:10:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hoshiarpur-roller-flour-mills-vs-income-tax-officer-on-29-september-2008"},"wordCount":1441,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hoshiarpur-roller-flour-mills-vs-income-tax-officer-on-29-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hoshiarpur-roller-flour-mills-vs-income-tax-officer-on-29-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hoshiarpur-roller-flour-mills-vs-income-tax-officer-on-29-september-2008","name":"M\/S Hoshiarpur Roller Flour Mills vs Income Tax Officer on 29 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-23T04:10:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hoshiarpur-roller-flour-mills-vs-income-tax-officer-on-29-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hoshiarpur-roller-flour-mills-vs-income-tax-officer-on-29-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-hoshiarpur-roller-flour-mills-vs-income-tax-officer-on-29-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Hoshiarpur Roller Flour Mills vs Income Tax Officer on 29 September, 2008"}]},{"@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\/213360","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=213360"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/213360\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=213360"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=213360"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=213360"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}