{"id":2222,"date":"1999-09-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-09-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assistant-commissioner-vs-nandanam-construction-company-on-21-september-1999"},"modified":"2016-01-22T22:05:30","modified_gmt":"2016-01-22T16:35:30","slug":"assistant-commissioner-vs-nandanam-construction-company-on-21-september-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assistant-commissioner-vs-nandanam-construction-company-on-21-september-1999","title":{"rendered":"Assistant Commissioner &#8230; vs Nandanam Construction Company on 21 September, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Assistant Commissioner &#8230; vs Nandanam Construction Company on 21 September, 1999<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Babu<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.P.Bharucha, B.N.Kirpal, S.Rajendra Babu, S.S.M.Quadri, M.B.Shah<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2064 of 1984\n\nPETITIONER:\nASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE)\n\nRESPONDENT:\nNANDANAM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/09\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nS.P.BHARUCHA &amp; B.N.KIRPAL &amp; S.RAJENDRA BABU &amp; S.S.M.QUADRI &amp; M.B.SHAH\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>DELIVERED BY:\n<\/p>\n<p>S.RAJENDRA BABU, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>RAJENDRA BABU, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  respondents are engaged in building of flats\t and<br \/>\nhouses\tfor  which purpose they buy materials such as  sand,<br \/>\nbricks\tand  granite  from  persons  other  than  registered<br \/>\ndealers.   These items have not suffered any sales tax.\t The<br \/>\nAssistant  Commissioner\t of Commercial\tTaxes,\tEnforcement,<br \/>\ncalled\tupon  the respondents by a notice dated January\t 19,<br \/>\n1982  to  appear before him with their accounts relating  to<br \/>\npurchase  of raw materials effected by them commencing\tfrom<br \/>\nApril  1, 1977.\t The respondents sent a reply to him stating<br \/>\nthat  they  do not trade in any goods;\tthat they  construct<br \/>\nand sell flats;\t that they are not registered dealers;\tthat<br \/>\nsaid  purchases do not attract tax under Section 6-A of\t the<br \/>\nAndhra\tPradesh\t General  Sales Tax Act,  1957\t(hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred  to  as the Act).  Not being satisfied\t with  the<br \/>\nreply  filed by the respondents, the Assistant\tCommissioner<br \/>\nof  Commercial Taxes issued a notice on March 22, 1982 under<br \/>\nSection\t 28  of\t the  Act calling upon\tthe  respondents  to<br \/>\nproduce books of accounts and purchase bills and to file the<br \/>\ndetails\t relating to the purchase of raw materials  effected<br \/>\nby  them  for  the  period commencing from  April  1,  1977.<br \/>\nAggrieved  by  the  said notice the respondents\t filed\twrit<br \/>\npetitions  under  Article 226 of the Constitution  of  India<br \/>\nquestioning  the  jurisdiction of the appellants  to  assess<br \/>\nthem under the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Several  contentions  had been raised before the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt\tsuch  as  discrimination   between  registered\t and<br \/>\nunregistered  dealers  and  that  the  respondents  are\t not<br \/>\ndealers\t and  that in order to attract Section 6-A a  dealer<br \/>\nmust  have  purchased  goods from unregistered\tdealers\t and<br \/>\nconsumed  such\tgoods in the manufacture of other goods\t for<br \/>\nsale  or disposed of such goods either within or outside the<br \/>\nState.\t The  first two contentions stood rejected and\tthat<br \/>\npart  of the order is not challenged before us.\t  Therefore,<br \/>\nwe  have  to confine ourselves to the question\twhether\t the<br \/>\nrespondents  who  purchased  goods from persons\t other\tthan<br \/>\nregistered  dealers fall within the scope of Section 6-A  of<br \/>\nthe  Act.  Section 6-A of the Act reads as follows :-  6-A.<br \/>\nLevy  of  tax  on turnover relating to purchase\t of  certain<br \/>\ngoods:\t Every dealers, who in the course of business&#8211;\t (i)<br \/>\npurchases any goods (the sale of purchase of which is liable<br \/>\nto  tax\t under\tthis  Act)   from  a  registered  dealer  in<br \/>\ncircumstances  in which no tax is payable under section 5 or<br \/>\nunder  section 6, as the case may be, or (ii) purchases\t any<br \/>\ngoods  (the sale or purchase of which is liable to tax under<br \/>\nthis  Act) from a person other than a registered dealer, and\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)  either consumes such goods in the manufacture of  other<br \/>\ngoods  for sale or otherwise, or (b) disposes of such  goods<br \/>\nin any manner other than by way of sale in the State, or (c)<br \/>\ndespatches  them  to a place outside the State except  as  a<br \/>\ndirect\tresult\tof  sale  or   purchase\t in  the  course  of<br \/>\ninter-state trade or commerce, shall pay tax on the turnover<br \/>\nrelating to purchase aforesaid at the same rate at which but<br \/>\nfor  the existence of the aforementioned circumstances,\t the<br \/>\ntax  would have been leviable on such goods under section  5<br \/>\nor section 6.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  respondents contention is that the goods such as<br \/>\nsand  and  bricks purchased by them are not consumed in\t the<br \/>\nmanufacture of other goods for sale inasmuch as they deal in<br \/>\nthe  construction  of  flats  which are\t in  the  nature  of<br \/>\nimmovable   property.\t The  respondents   are\t  also\t not<br \/>\nmanufacturing  any  other  goods  for\tsale  or  any  other<br \/>\npurposes.  Thus, they contend that Section 6-A of the Act is<br \/>\nnot  attracted.\t  The contention put forth on behalf of\t the<br \/>\nappellants is that even goods consumed for building purposes<br \/>\notherwise  than\t in the manufacture of other goods are\talso<br \/>\ncovered\t by  clause (ii)(a) of Section 6-A.  The High  Court<br \/>\nfound  that  there  is a conflict between the  decisions  in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/620315\/\">Ganesh\tPrasad\tDixit v.  Commissioner of Sales Tax,  Madhya<br \/>\nPradesh,<\/a>  1969\t(3) SCR 490, and Deputy Commissioner,  Sales<br \/>\nTax  (Law) Board of Revenue (taxes), Ernakulam v.  Pio\tFood<br \/>\nPackers,  1980 (3) SCR 1271.  The High Court is of the\tview<br \/>\nthat  the  said\t two  decisions\t  having  been\trendered  by<br \/>\nidentical  composition of Bench of three Judges, the  latter<br \/>\ndecision  was  binding upon them and held that in  order  to<br \/>\nattract\t the  provisions  of Section 6-A(ii)(a) of  the\t Act<br \/>\nthere  must  be\t consumption of the original goods  for\t the<br \/>\npurpose\t of  manufacture  of  other goods for  sale  or\t for<br \/>\npurposes  other\t than  sale  and  in  the  absence  of\tsuch<br \/>\nconsumption  the  respondents were not liable to  tax.\t The<br \/>\nmatter\tis brought up before this Court by way of appeal  by<br \/>\nspecial leave.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  matter is set down before us as a Bench of  three<br \/>\nJudges\treferred  the matter to larger bench in view of\t the<br \/>\nconflict between two decisions of this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  appellants contend that Section 6-A(ii)(a) of the<br \/>\nAct  is\t attracted to consumption of original goods  in\t the<br \/>\nmanufacture  of\t the other goods for sale or consumption  of<br \/>\noriginal  goods\t otherwise  and\t placed\t reliance  upon\t the<br \/>\ndecision  in  Ganesh  Prasad  Dixit  (supra).\tThe  learned<br \/>\ncounsel also referred to the decision in Hotel Balaji &amp; Ors.<br \/>\nv.  State of Andhra Pradesh &amp; Ors., 1992 Supp.\t(2) SCR 182,<br \/>\nto  contend  that the object of the provision under  Section<br \/>\n6-A  of\t the Act is to levy purchase tax on the purchase  of<br \/>\nraw  material  used by a consumer be that a manufacturer  or<br \/>\notherwise.   He\t also  sought  to   place  reliance  on\t the<br \/>\namendment made in the enactment in 1985 as clarificatory and<br \/>\ncovering the present case also.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that<br \/>\nthe  view  taken in Pio Food Packers (supra) which has\tbeen<br \/>\nfollowed in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of<br \/>\nRevenue(Taxes),\t Ernakulam  v.\t M\/s Thomas  Stephen  &amp;\t Co.<br \/>\nLtd.,  1988 (2) SCC 264, must be accepted and at any rate if<br \/>\ntwo  views are possible, the assessee should get the benefit<br \/>\nof  doubt  and\ttax ought not be  imposed.   The  subsequent<br \/>\namendment  to  the enactment would make the  position  clear<br \/>\nand, therefore, the expression otherwise cannot be read as<br \/>\nin any other manner.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Construing  identical  provisions\t in  Madhya  Pradesh<br \/>\nSales  Tax Act, this Court in the decision in Ganesh  Prasad<br \/>\nDixit (supra) stated as follows :-\n<\/p>\n<p>      Mr.   Chagla,  for  the  appellants  urged  that\tthe<br \/>\nexpression   or\t  otherwise  is\t  intended  to\tdenote\t a<br \/>\nconjunctive  introducing a specific alternative to the words<br \/>\nfor  sale  immediately preceding.  The clause in which\tit<br \/>\noccurs\tmeans, says Mr.\t Chagla, that by section 7 the price<br \/>\npaid  for buying goods consumed in the manufacture of  other<br \/>\ngoods,\tintended to be sold or otherwise disposed of,  alone<br \/>\nis  taxable.   We  do not think that that  is  a  reasonable<br \/>\ninterpretation of the expression either consumes such goods<br \/>\nin  the\t manufacture of other goods for sale or\t otherwise.<br \/>\nIt  is intended by the Legislature that consumption of goods<br \/>\nrenders\t the  price paid for their purchase taxable, if\t the<br \/>\ngoods are used in the manufacture of other goods for sale or<br \/>\nif the goods are consumed otherwise.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Subsequently  this  Court in Pio Food Packers  (supra)<br \/>\nconsidered  identical words in Kerala General Sales Tax\t Act<br \/>\nin another manner as follows :-\n<\/p>\n<p>      Learned counsel for the Revenue contends that even if<br \/>\nno  manufacturing process is involved, the case still  falls<br \/>\nwithin section 5A(1)(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act,<br \/>\nbecause\t the  statutory provision speaks not only  of  goods<br \/>\nconsumed in the manufacture of other goods for sale but also<br \/>\ngoods  consumed\t otherwise.   There  is\t a  fallacy  in\t the<br \/>\nsubmission.   The  clause,  truly   read,  speaks  of  goods<br \/>\nconsumed in the manufacture of other goods for sale or goods<br \/>\nconsumed  in  the  manufacture of other goods  for  purposes<br \/>\nother than sale.\n<\/p>\n<p>      We  are concerned in this case only with clause (a) of<br \/>\nsub-section (ii) of Section 6-A, that is, either consumption<br \/>\nof  such goods in the manufacture of other goods for sale or<br \/>\notherwise.  Clause (ii) of Section 6-A of the Act postulates<br \/>\nlevy  of tax on purchase of goods from a person other than a<br \/>\nregistered dealer for consumption or disposal or despatch of<br \/>\ngoods  outside\tthe State.  So the scheme of clause (ii)  of<br \/>\nSection 6-A of the Act is that when the goods cease to exist<br \/>\nin  the original form or cease to be available in the  State<br \/>\nfor sale or purchase, the purchasing dealer of such goods is<br \/>\nliable\tto tax if the seller is not or cannot be taxed.\t  To<br \/>\nour  mind, it appears that the object of Section 6- A(ii)(a)<br \/>\nof  the Act is to levy purchase tax on goods consumed either<br \/>\nfor  the  purpose of manufacture of other goods for sale  or<br \/>\nconsumed otherwise.  If the view in Pio Food Packers (supra)<br \/>\nis  accepted  the  result  would   be  that  the  expression<br \/>\notherwise  will qualify the expression sale and not  the<br \/>\nexpression   manufacture,  which  appears  to  us  to\tbe<br \/>\nerroneous  on  a plain construction of the  provision.\t The<br \/>\nintention  of the legislature, it appears to us, is to bring<br \/>\nto  purchase tax in either event of consumption of goods  in<br \/>\nthe manufacture of goods for sale or consumption of goods in<br \/>\nany  other  manner.   Once  the goods are  utilised  in\t the<br \/>\nconstruction  of buildings the goods cease to exist or cease<br \/>\nto  be available in that form for sale or purchase so as  to<br \/>\nattract\t the  tax and, therefore, the correct meaning to  be<br \/>\nattributed  to the said provision would be that tax will  be<br \/>\nattracted when such goods are consumed in the manufacture of<br \/>\nother  goods  or are consumed otherwise.   Therefore,  while<br \/>\nagreeing  with\tthe view in Ganesh Prasad Dixit\t (supra)  on<br \/>\nthis  aspect, we overrule to this extent the view  expressed<br \/>\nin Pio Food Packers (supra).  Consequently, we set aside the<br \/>\nimpugned  order made by the High Court and dismiss the\twrit<br \/>\npetitions.   It is now up to the department to proceed\twith<br \/>\nthe   assessment  after\t giving\t  due  opportunity  to\t the<br \/>\nrespondents  to\t file  their  objections.   Considering\t the<br \/>\nnature\tand  circumstances  of the case, there shall  be  no<br \/>\norder as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Assistant Commissioner &#8230; vs Nandanam Construction Company on 21 September, 1999 Author: S Babu Bench: S.P.Bharucha, B.N.Kirpal, S.Rajendra Babu, S.S.M.Quadri, M.B.Shah CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2064 of 1984 PETITIONER: ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE) RESPONDENT: NANDANAM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/09\/1999 BENCH: S.P.BHARUCHA &amp; B.N.KIRPAL &amp; S.RAJENDRA BABU &amp; S.S.M.QUADRI &amp; M.B.SHAH [&hellip;]<\/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-2222","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Assistant Commissioner ... vs Nandanam Construction Company on 21 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/assistant-commissioner-vs-nandanam-construction-company-on-21-september-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Assistant Commissioner ... vs Nandanam Construction Company on 21 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assistant-commissioner-vs-nandanam-construction-company-on-21-september-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-22T16:35:30+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\/assistant-commissioner-vs-nandanam-construction-company-on-21-september-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assistant-commissioner-vs-nandanam-construction-company-on-21-september-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Assistant Commissioner &#8230; vs Nandanam Construction Company on 21 September, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-22T16:35:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assistant-commissioner-vs-nandanam-construction-company-on-21-september-1999\"},\"wordCount\":1710,\"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\/assistant-commissioner-vs-nandanam-construction-company-on-21-september-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assistant-commissioner-vs-nandanam-construction-company-on-21-september-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assistant-commissioner-vs-nandanam-construction-company-on-21-september-1999\",\"name\":\"Assistant Commissioner ... vs Nandanam Construction Company on 21 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-22T16:35:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assistant-commissioner-vs-nandanam-construction-company-on-21-september-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assistant-commissioner-vs-nandanam-construction-company-on-21-september-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assistant-commissioner-vs-nandanam-construction-company-on-21-september-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Assistant Commissioner &#8230; vs Nandanam Construction Company on 21 September, 1999\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Assistant Commissioner ... vs Nandanam Construction Company on 21 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/assistant-commissioner-vs-nandanam-construction-company-on-21-september-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Assistant Commissioner ... vs Nandanam Construction Company on 21 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assistant-commissioner-vs-nandanam-construction-company-on-21-september-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-22T16:35:30+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\/assistant-commissioner-vs-nandanam-construction-company-on-21-september-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assistant-commissioner-vs-nandanam-construction-company-on-21-september-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Assistant Commissioner &#8230; vs Nandanam Construction Company on 21 September, 1999","datePublished":"1999-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-22T16:35:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assistant-commissioner-vs-nandanam-construction-company-on-21-september-1999"},"wordCount":1710,"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\/assistant-commissioner-vs-nandanam-construction-company-on-21-september-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assistant-commissioner-vs-nandanam-construction-company-on-21-september-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assistant-commissioner-vs-nandanam-construction-company-on-21-september-1999","name":"Assistant Commissioner ... vs Nandanam Construction Company on 21 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-22T16:35:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assistant-commissioner-vs-nandanam-construction-company-on-21-september-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assistant-commissioner-vs-nandanam-construction-company-on-21-september-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/assistant-commissioner-vs-nandanam-construction-company-on-21-september-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Assistant Commissioner &#8230; vs Nandanam Construction Company on 21 September, 1999"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2222","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=2222"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2222\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2222"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2222"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2222"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}