{"id":239479,"date":"2010-07-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wipro-ge-healthcare-pvt-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-inspector-on-7-july-2010"},"modified":"2015-05-01T17:18:15","modified_gmt":"2015-05-01T11:48:15","slug":"wipro-ge-healthcare-pvt-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-inspector-on-7-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wipro-ge-healthcare-pvt-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-inspector-on-7-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Wipro Ge Healthcare Pvt.Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Inspector on 7 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Wipro Ge Healthcare Pvt.Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Inspector on 7 July, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 19474 of 2010(H)\n\n\n1. WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PVT.LTD.,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.KUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.JAIRAM.V.MENON\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON\n\n Dated :07\/07\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                   P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.\n             ..............................................................................\n                      W.P.(C) No. 19474 OF 2010\n              .........................................................................\n                         Dated this the 7th July , 2010\n\n                                   J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
     The petitioner, who is engaged in the manufacture and sale<\/p>\n
of various   diagnostic systems and allied equipments, having<\/p>\n
registered office at Bangalore and other regional offices in other<\/p>\n
places including Pondicherry as well as in Kerala as borne by<\/p>\n
Exts. P1\/P1(a) certificates of registration, on                                           receipt of a<\/p>\n
purchase order from the Addl. Second respondent (who is not a<\/p>\n
dealer), transported a scanning machine to be supplied at the<\/p>\n
doors of the Addl. Second respondent on the strength of Ext. P2<\/p>\n
invoice. When it was being taken in the vehicle bearing No. TN-<\/p>\n
20AK\/2499, it was intercepted on 15.06.2010 issuing Ext. P6<\/p>\n
notice under Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act, doubting evasion of<\/p>\n
tax and demanding security deposit to the extent specified<\/p>\n
therein.\n<\/p>\n
     2. On explaining the position as to the true state of affairs,<\/p>\n
the respondents chose to issue a revised notice as borne by Ext.<\/p>\n
P7, still maintaining the stand that the petitioner had to satisfy<\/p>\n
the security deposit, in view of the alleged discrepancy. Even<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 19474 OF 2010<\/p>\n
                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
though Exts. P8, P8(a) and P9        representations\/explanations<\/p>\n
were filed, the same did not yield any positive result, which made<\/p>\n
the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this Writ Petition<\/p>\n
for immediate interference .\n<\/p>\n
     3.    The    insinuating   circumstances     noted     against<\/p>\n
transportation of materials are given below:<\/p>\n
           “Wipro GE Healthcare, Bangalore sold a CT<\/p>\n
           Scanner and accessories to Travancore MRI<\/p>\n
           scans laboratory Pathanamthitta. As per the<\/p>\n
           invoice the consignor collected CST @ 2% and<\/p>\n
           attached the certificate of ownership, for the<\/p>\n
           transportation.    The above consignor has<\/p>\n
           availed concessional rate against C form. A<\/p>\n
           registered dealer with CST registration can<\/p>\n
           provide C forms. But there is no evidence to<\/p>\n
           prove that, whether the consignee is a<\/p>\n
           registered dealer CST dealer or not. Hence the<\/p>\n
           evasion of tad suspected. SD demanded.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The course and explanation offered from the part of the parties<\/p>\n
concerned vide Exts.P8, P8(a) and P9 are given below:<\/p>\n
           “A. The invoice has been raised from Wipro GE<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 19474 OF 2010<\/p>\n
                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
           Healthcare, Pondicherry and goods moved from<\/p>\n
           Wipro GE Healthcare, Puducherry.\n<\/p>\n
           B. TIN number mentioned in the invoice is the<\/p>\n
           TIN      number    of    Wipro   GE    Healthcare,<\/p>\n
           Puducherry under Puducherry VAT Act. Copy of<\/p>\n
           the registration certificate enclosed.\n<\/p>\n
           C.     Rate of tax for Medical equipments in<\/p>\n
           Puducherry has been reduced from 4% to 2%.\n<\/p>\n
           Hence CST rate without C form         is also 2%.\n<\/p>\n
           Copy of the notification enclosed.\n<\/p>\n
           D. The Bangalore address mentioned in the<\/p>\n
           invoice only shows the registered office of the<\/p>\n
           company, invoice specifically states the goods<\/p>\n
           are despatched from Puducherry warehouse.<\/p>\n
           E. The purchase of the equipment is for own<\/p>\n
           use at its Diagnostic centre at Pathanamthitta.<\/p>\n
           Form    16   already     accompanied    with  the\n\n           equipment. \"\n\n<\/pre>\n
     4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well<\/p>\n
     5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits<\/p>\n
that the entire proceedings have been issued, causing detention<\/p>\n
of the vehicle as well as the goods by the respondents totally on<\/p>\n
a misconception    as to the factual and legal position.     It is<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 19474 OF 2010<\/p>\n
                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
contended that the respondents are under the impression that,<\/p>\n
since the tax collected is only at the rate of 2%, the consignee<\/p>\n
has purchased the same availing the ‘concessional rate of tax’.<\/p>\n
Since the consignee is not a registered dealer, the declaration<\/p>\n
filed in Form 16 stating that it is for ‘own use’ does not tally with<\/p>\n
the contents of other documents and hence evasion of tax is<\/p>\n
doubted. It is also stated that by virtue of having the registered<\/p>\n
office at Bangalore, as given at the top of Ext. P2 invoice, the<\/p>\n
respondents had to doubt the evasion of tax, the goods having<\/p>\n
been despatched from Puducherry.\n<\/p>\n
      6. With reference to the materials on record, including the<\/p>\n
additional documents produced and marked as Ext. P10 to P15<\/p>\n
along with I.A.No. 9223 of 2010, the learned Counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner submits that the rate of tax       sought to be realised<\/p>\n
from the consignee at 2% is not by way of ‘concessional rate of<\/p>\n
tax’ but the ‘original rate of tax’ as payable in the      State of<\/p>\n
Pondicherry, the same having been reduced from 4% to 2% by<\/p>\n
virtue of relevant    notification issued in this regard.        The<\/p>\n
correctness of the said submission        is however sought to be<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 19474 OF 2010<\/p>\n
                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
rebutted by the learned Government Pleader stating that this is<\/p>\n
a fact which requires to be considered and established in the<\/p>\n
course of adjudication.\n<\/p>\n
      7.   With regard to the discrepancy as to the place of<\/p>\n
registration and the place of despatch, the learned Counsel for<\/p>\n
the petitioner  submits that the actual position is very much<\/p>\n
discernible from Ext. P2 invoice itself; wherein the registered<\/p>\n
office is given at the top, ie., ‘Bangalore’, while the place of<\/p>\n
despatch is clearly given at the bottom as from ‘Puducherry’. The<\/p>\n
learned Counsel further submits that such a course was being<\/p>\n
pursued in the matter of preparation and issuance of invoice, by<\/p>\n
virtue of   the centralised pattern of invoice    available in the<\/p>\n
Southern States of India,      though such a course has been<\/p>\n
changed in Kerala, pursuant to which, the petitioner has also<\/p>\n
now changed the pattern . It is also brought to the notice of this<\/p>\n
Court   that the actual ‘TIN’ is clearly given in Ext. P2 and that<\/p>\n
similar course is very much discernible from other documents<\/p>\n
produced and marked as          Exts. P10 to P15       along with<\/p>\n
I.A.No.9223 of 2010. Referring to the contents of Ext. P15, the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 19474 OF 2010<\/p>\n
                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
learned Counsel further submits that the tax realised from the<\/p>\n
petitioner is only at the rate of 2%, which by itself shows that it<\/p>\n
is the actual rate of tax   available in the concerned State and<\/p>\n
not the concessional rate of tax. The learned Counsel explains<\/p>\n
that Ext. P4 delivery note has been issued from ‘Puducherry’<\/p>\n
and it is in the particular form as prevailing in the State of<\/p>\n
Pondicherry, which includes the instance of sale as well,       as<\/p>\n
obvious therefrom. The factum of sale by the petitioner\/consignor<\/p>\n
and the factum of ‘own use’ to be made by the consignee, (who<\/p>\n
is not a registered dealer and who placed the order for ‘own<\/p>\n
use’) are very much revealed from the materials on record,<\/p>\n
submits the learned Counsel.\n<\/p>\n
      8. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds<\/p>\n
that there is considerable force in the submissions made from the<\/p>\n
part of the petitioner. However, as submitted by the learned<\/p>\n
Government Pleader, this is a matter which requires to be<\/p>\n
finalised in the course of adjudication proceedings, in view of<\/p>\n
issuance of notice under Section 47(2) and the turn of events<\/p>\n
including the actual rate of tax. But, for that reason, this Court<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 19474 OF 2010<\/p>\n
                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
does not find it necessary to detain the goods as well as the<\/p>\n
vehicle any further and the same shall be         released  to the<\/p>\n
petitioner forthwith, on condition that the petitioner executes a<\/p>\n
‘simple bond’ for the amount demanded as security deposit in<\/p>\n
Ext. P7 notice. This will be without prejudice to the rights of the<\/p>\n
respondents to pursue the adjudication proceedings, which<\/p>\n
exercise shall be finalised in        accordance with law        as<\/p>\n
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two<\/p>\n
months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.<\/p>\n
      The Writ Petition is disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                 P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
\n                                          JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
lk<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Wipro Ge Healthcare Pvt.Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Inspector on 7 July, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 19474 of 2010(H) 1. WIPRO GE HEALTHCARE PVT.LTD., … Petitioner Vs 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.A.KUMAR For Respondent :SRI.JAIRAM.V.MENON The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-239479","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nWipro Ge Healthcare Pvt.Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Inspector on 7 July, 2010 - 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\/wipro-ge-healthcare-pvt-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-inspector-on-7-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Wipro Ge Healthcare Pvt.Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Inspector on 7 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wipro-ge-healthcare-pvt-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-inspector-on-7-july-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-01T11:48:15+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wipro-ge-healthcare-pvt-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-inspector-on-7-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wipro-ge-healthcare-pvt-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-inspector-on-7-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Wipro Ge Healthcare Pvt.Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Inspector on 7 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-01T11:48:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wipro-ge-healthcare-pvt-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-inspector-on-7-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1233,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wipro-ge-healthcare-pvt-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-inspector-on-7-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wipro-ge-healthcare-pvt-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-inspector-on-7-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wipro-ge-healthcare-pvt-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-inspector-on-7-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Wipro Ge Healthcare Pvt.Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Inspector on 7 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-01T11:48:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wipro-ge-healthcare-pvt-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-inspector-on-7-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wipro-ge-healthcare-pvt-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-inspector-on-7-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wipro-ge-healthcare-pvt-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-inspector-on-7-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Wipro Ge Healthcare Pvt.Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Inspector on 7 July, 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":"Wipro Ge Healthcare Pvt.Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Inspector on 7 July, 2010 - 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\/wipro-ge-healthcare-pvt-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-inspector-on-7-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Wipro Ge Healthcare Pvt.Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Inspector on 7 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wipro-ge-healthcare-pvt-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-inspector-on-7-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-01T11:48:15+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wipro-ge-healthcare-pvt-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-inspector-on-7-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wipro-ge-healthcare-pvt-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-inspector-on-7-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Wipro Ge Healthcare Pvt.Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Inspector on 7 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-01T11:48:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wipro-ge-healthcare-pvt-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-inspector-on-7-july-2010"},"wordCount":1233,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wipro-ge-healthcare-pvt-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-inspector-on-7-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wipro-ge-healthcare-pvt-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-inspector-on-7-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wipro-ge-healthcare-pvt-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-inspector-on-7-july-2010","name":"Wipro Ge Healthcare Pvt.Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Inspector on 7 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-01T11:48:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wipro-ge-healthcare-pvt-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-inspector-on-7-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wipro-ge-healthcare-pvt-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-inspector-on-7-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wipro-ge-healthcare-pvt-ltd-vs-the-commercial-tax-inspector-on-7-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Wipro Ge Healthcare Pvt.Ltd vs The Commercial Tax Inspector on 7 July, 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\/239479","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=239479"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/239479\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=239479"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=239479"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=239479"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}