{"id":238398,"date":"2010-01-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-january-2010"},"modified":"2016-07-20T06:01:03","modified_gmt":"2016-07-20T00:31:03","slug":"commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs Unknown on 18 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner vs Unknown on 18 January, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K.A.Puj,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.Shukla,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/549\/2009\t 8\/ 8\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 549 of 2009\n \n\n \n===================================\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER\nOF INCOME TAX-I - Appellant\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nM\/S\nCHANDAN RICE &amp; PULSE MILLS - Opponent\n \n\n=================================== \nAppearance\n: \nMRS\nMAUNA M BHATT for Appellant. \nNone for\nOpponent. \n===================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 18\/01\/2010 \nORAL ORDER<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tCommissioner of Income Tax-I has filed this appeal under Section<br \/>\n\t260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2002   03<br \/>\n\tproposing to formulate the following substantial question of law for<br \/>\n\tthe determination and consideration of this Court:-\n<\/p>\n<p> Whether,<br \/>\non the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate<br \/>\nTribunal was right in law and on facts upholding the order of the CIT<br \/>\n(A) in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271E irrespective<br \/>\nof the fact that the Circular 8 of 2002 is clear that a curative<br \/>\namendment to re-clarify the true intention of the legislature was<br \/>\nbrought in and the same should be given retrospective operation ?\n<\/p>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tMrs. Mauna M. Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the<br \/>\n\trevenue and perused the orders passed by the authorities below.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tis the case of the Revenue that the Assessing Officer has discovered<br \/>\n\tduring the course of assessment proceedings that the assessee has<br \/>\n\trepaid some of the deposits by cheque in contravention of Section<br \/>\n\t269T of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and thereby the assessee was liable<br \/>\n\tfor penalty under Section 271E of the Act.  In response to the<br \/>\n\tnotice issued under Section 271E, the assessee has submitted that<br \/>\n\tthe amounts in question do not constitute the deposits but they are<br \/>\n\tloans and on similar set of facts and circumstances for A.Y. 1999<br \/>\n\t00, the then Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax dropped the<br \/>\n\tproceedings.  The submissions of the assessee were not found<br \/>\n\tfavourable with the Assessing Officer and he levied penalty under<br \/>\n\tSection 271E of the Act.  Being aggrieved by the said order, the<br \/>\n\tassessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeal) and the CIT<br \/>\n\t(Appeal) vide his order dated 29.09.2006 deleted the penalty of<br \/>\n\tRs.7,27,047\/- levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271E of<br \/>\n\tthe Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>Being<br \/>\n\taggrieved by the said order, the revenue challenged the order of CIT<br \/>\n\t(Appeal) before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order dated<br \/>\n\t04.12.2007 dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order passed<br \/>\n\tby the CIT (Appeal).\n<\/p>\n<p>Being<br \/>\n\taggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue has preferred<br \/>\n\tthe present Tax Appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mrs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMauna Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant<br \/>\n\thas submitted that by virtue of the amendment brought to the<br \/>\n\tIncome-tax Act by the Finance Act, 2002 with effect from 01.06.2002<br \/>\n\twhich is merely clarificatory in nature, the loan is also included<br \/>\n\tand any repayment of loan in cash would make the assessee liable to<br \/>\n\tpenalty under Section 271E of the Act.  She has further submitted<br \/>\n\tthat the Explanation to Section 269T makes it clear that for the<br \/>\n\tpurposes of Section 269T, loan or deposit means any loan or deposit<br \/>\n\tof money which is repayable after notice or repayable after a period<br \/>\n\tand, in the case of a person other than a Company, includes loan or<br \/>\n\tdeposit of any nature.  She has, therefore, submitted that the<br \/>\n\tamount repaid by the assessee in cash, even if it is considered to<br \/>\n\tbe the loan, the assessee is liable to penalty under Section 271E of<br \/>\n\tthe Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>We<br \/>\n\thave considered the submissions made by Mrs. Bhatt and perused the<br \/>\n\torders passed by the authorities below.  The learned CIT (Appeal)<br \/>\n\thas observed that the assessee had not issued any deposit receipts<br \/>\n\tsince the transactions were in the nature of a loan. It was further<br \/>\n\tpointed out on behalf of the assessee that the accounts of the<br \/>\n\tCompany are audited under Section 44AB of the Act and in the said<br \/>\n\taudit report, the Chartered Accountant at Annexure D has given the<br \/>\n\tparticulars of loans repaid by the appellant during the previous<br \/>\n\tyear.  In the balance-sheet also, Schedule 3 shows the unsecured<br \/>\n\tloans.  It was also argued on behalf of the assessee before the CIT<br \/>\n\t(Appeal) that the intention of the Legislature at the time of<br \/>\n\tbringing the amendment is evident from the Notes and clauses forming<br \/>\n\tpart of Finance Bill, 2002, Clause 95 whereof seeks to substitute a<br \/>\n\tnew section for the existing Section 269T.   The CIT (Appeal) has<br \/>\n\treproduced the relevant portion from the said Circular which makes<br \/>\n\tit clear that it has been noticed that the provisions of sections<br \/>\n\tare being circumvented by terming deposits as loans and contending<br \/>\n\tthat the Section applies only to deposits and not to loans.<br \/>\n\tReferring to the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT<br \/>\n\tV\/s. Govindkumar, 119 Taxman 110, the said Circular further states<br \/>\n\tthat in a judgment of a High Court, it was held that the meaning of<br \/>\n\tword &#8216;deposit&#8217; occurring in Section 269T cannot be stretched to<br \/>\n\tinclude loans.  In order to clarify the intention of the<br \/>\n\tLegislature, the Finance Act, 2002 has substituted the existing<br \/>\n\tsection by a new section so as to extend its scope to loans also,<br \/>\n\tand delete the provisions contained therein which have become<br \/>\n\tobsolete.  On the basis of this amendment, it was contended that the<br \/>\n\tsaid amended provisions cannot be applied retrospectively.  All<br \/>\n\tthese contentions were weighed with the CIT (Appeal) and he held<br \/>\n\tthat the transactions noted by the Assessing Officer were in the<br \/>\n\tnature of loans as claimed by the assessee and, therefore, the<br \/>\n\trepayments in cash were not covered under the provisions of Section<br \/>\n\t269T of the Act.  Accordingly, he held that no penalty is exigible<br \/>\n\tunder Section 271E of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore, the order of<br \/>\n\tthe Assessing Officer under Section 271E was cancelled.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tTribunal has confirmed the said order of the learned CIT (Appeal)<br \/>\n\tand it was held that the amendment being specific, has to be held as<br \/>\n\tprospective in nature and same cannot be held to be clarificatory on<br \/>\n\tassumptions so as to apply penalty proceedings under Section 271E<br \/>\n\tretrospectively. While taking this view, the Tribunal has referred<br \/>\n\tto the decision of the Punjab &amp; Haryana High Court in the case<br \/>\n\tof Som Nath Khem Chand and others V\/s. ITO and another, 250 ITR 785<br \/>\n\t(P&amp;H) wherein while dismissing the petition, the Court held that<br \/>\n\tthe complaint was lodged prior to the amendment \/ substitution of<br \/>\n\tSection 276DD.  The amendment\/deletion was brought about in Section<br \/>\n\t276DD with effect from 01.04.1989, substituting the same with<br \/>\n\tSection 271D, wherein only penalty had been provided.  Such<br \/>\n\tamendment \/ substitution could not operate retrospectively unless<br \/>\n\tthe substitution was made specifically retrospective or could be so<br \/>\n\tinferred by an implied intendment.  Thus, the order of the Sessions<br \/>\n\tJudge could not be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>Since<br \/>\n\tthe amendment in Section 269T by the Finance<br \/>\n\tAct, 2002 which has come into effect from 01.06.2002 and all<br \/>\n\trepayments made by the assessee were prior to that date, we are of<br \/>\n\tthe view that the assessee has not committed any default under<br \/>\n\tSection 269T of the Act and hence, no penalty could be levied under<br \/>\n\tSection 271E of the Act.  Since we are in agreement with the views<br \/>\n\ttaken by the learned CIT (Appeal) as well as the Tribunal and this<br \/>\n\tbeing a concurrent finding of fact, we are of the view that no<br \/>\n\tsubstantial question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe appeal is,<br \/>\n\ttherefore, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[K. A. PUJ, J.]\t\t<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t[RAJESH H. SHUKLA,<br \/>\nJ.]<\/p>\n<p>Savariya  <\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Commissioner vs Unknown on 18 January, 2010 Author: K.A.Puj,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.Shukla,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/549\/2009 8\/ 8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 549 of 2009 =================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I &#8211; Appellant Versus M\/S CHANDAN RICE &amp; PULSE MILLS &#8211; Opponent [&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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-238398","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Commissioner vs Unknown on 18 January, 2010 - 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\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner vs Unknown on 18 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-january-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-20T00:31:03+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs Unknown on 18 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-20T00:31:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1205,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Unknown on 18 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-20T00:31:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Unknown on 18 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner vs Unknown on 18 January, 2010 - 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\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs Unknown on 18 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-20T00:31:03+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs Unknown on 18 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-20T00:31:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-january-2010"},"wordCount":1205,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-january-2010","name":"Commissioner vs Unknown on 18 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-20T00:31:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs Unknown on 18 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/238398","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=238398"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/238398\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=238398"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=238398"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=238398"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}