{"id":248398,"date":"2007-05-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-05-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ranga-rao-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-16-may-2007"},"modified":"2018-09-15T08:03:30","modified_gmt":"2018-09-15T02:33:30","slug":"n-ranga-rao-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-16-may-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ranga-rao-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-16-may-2007","title":{"rendered":"N. Ranga Rao And Sons vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 16 May, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
N. Ranga Rao And Sons vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 16 May, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: Kapadia<\/div>\n
Bench: S.H. Kapadia, B. Sudershan Reddy<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5852 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nN. Ranga Rao and Sons\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Karnataka and Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/05\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nS.H. Kapadia & B. Sudershan Reddy\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
KAPADIA, J.\n<\/p>\n
1. This civil appeal is filed by the assessee and is directed against the
\njudgment and order delivered by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High
\nCourt on 5.8.2006 in Tax Appeal No. 22\/1996 holding the proceedings under
\nSection 15(2) of Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 (“the said 1979
\nAct”) are not barred by time.\n<\/p>\n
2. A short question which arises for determination in the civil appeal is:
\nWhether mere calling for the records for examination of the case on
\n16.3.1996 by Additional Commissioner constituted exercise of power within
\nthe meaning of Section 15(4) of the said 1979 Act so as to fall within the
\nlimitation period specified therein?\n<\/p>\n
3. The appellant is the manufacturer of branded agarabathis having its
\nmanufacturing unit at Mysore. It causes entry of various raw materials into
\nthe local area of Mysore. For the Assessment Years 1986-87 to 1989-90, the
\nAssessing Officer (“AO”) passed an order of assessment levying tax on all
\nthe items imported into the local area of Mysore. According to the
\nappellant, packing material was not to be taxed as raw material. This was
\nnot accepted by the AO. Aggrieved by the said decision, an appeal was
\nfiled. The Appellate Authority excluded the packing material from taxation.
\nThe decision of the Appellate Authority was delivered on 28.3.1992. On
\n20.5.1996 a show cause notice was given to the appellant-assessee by the
\nAdditional Commissioner under Section 15(1) stating that, upon scrutiny of
\nthe records, he found the order dated 28.3.1992 to be erroneous and
\nprejudicial to the Revenue for the reason that as per serial No. 16-A of
\nthe Schedule to the 1979 Act, packing material was liable to be taxed @ 2%,
\nwhich has not been noticed by the First Appellate Authority and, therefore,
\nit had committed an error in setting aside the tax levied by the AO on the
\nvalue of packing material. In the circumstances, the Additional
\nCommissioner called upon the assessee to show cause as to why the order of
\nthe First Appellate Authority should not be set aside and restore the
\nAssessment Order levying tax on the value of packing materials. In the show
\ncause notice, the Additional Commissioner stated that the order of the
\nFirst Appellate Authority was examined on 16.3.1996 and, therefore, the
\nrevision proceedings were within time.\n<\/p>\n
4. As stated above, the short point which arises for determination in this
\ncivil appeal is whether mere calling for records of the case for
\nexamination on 16.3.1996 amounts to exercise of power under Section 15(4)
\nof the said 1979 Act.\n<\/p>\n
5. To complete the chronology of events, it may be noted that the order of
\nthe First Appellate Authority was dated 28.3.1992, the order calling for
\nthe records by the Additional Commissioner was around 16.3.1996, the
\ndecision, on the question of error in the order of the First Appellate
\nAuthority and the loss to the revenue consequent thereto, was dated
\n16.3.1996, the show cause notice was dated 20.5.1996 and the same was
\nreceived by the assessee on 24.5.1996. The order ultimately passed by the
\nAdditional Commissioner under Section 15(1) was of 14\/15.10.1996.
\nTherefore, according to the assessee, mere calling for the records for
\nexamination around 16.3.1996 did not amount to exercise of power within the
\nmeaning of Section 15(4) of the said 1979 Act and if that be the case then,
\naccording to the assessee, issuance of the show cause notice on 20.5.1996
\nwas beyond the prescribed period of 4 years from the date of the order
\npassed by the First Appellate Authority on 28.3.1992. According to the
\nassessee, in the present case, the Additional Commissioner had initiated
\nproceedings by way of show cause notice on 20.5.1996. According to the
\nassessee, proceedings under Section 15(1) could only be initiated by
\nissuance of a show cause notice. According to the assessee, a mere
\nconsideration by the Additional Commissioner in his Chamber on 16.3.1996
\nregarding error in the order of the First Appellate Authority and the loss
\nto the revenue cannot constitute initiation of proceedings under Section
\n15(1) and nor did it constitute exercise of power within the meaning of
\nSection 15(4) of the said 1979 Act. Consequently, according to the
\nassessee, the revisional proceedings (suo motu) were time barred.\n<\/p>\n
6. The Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 was enacted to provide for
\nthe levy of tax on the entry of goods into local areas for consumption, use
\nor sale therein. Section 3 is the charging section. Under Section 3 a tax
\nwas levied and collected on entry of goods mentioned in he First Schedule
\ninto a local area for consumption, use or sale therein at the rates
\nprescribed. Section 3-A dealt with collection of tax by registered dealer.
\nChapter III dealt with filing of return, making of assessment, payment of
\ntaxes, recovery and collection of taxes. Under Section 5, every registered
\ndealer was required annually to submit a return to the AO within the period
\nprescribed. Section 5(4) and 5(5) provided for passing of assessment
\norders. Section 8 dealt with payment and recovery of tax. Chapter V dealt
\nwith appeals and revision. Section 15 formed part of Chapter V. We quote
\nhereinbelow Section 15 and Section 15-B.\n<\/p>\n
“15. Revisional Powers of Commissioner, Additional Commissioner, Joint
\nCommissioner and Deputy Commissioner: (1) The Commissioner may on his own
\nmotion call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act and
\nif he considers that any order passed therein by any officer subordinate to
\nhim is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the
\nrevenue, he may, if necessary, stay the operation of such order for such
\nperiod as he deems fit and after giving the assessee an opportunity of
\nbeing heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems
\nnecessary pass such orders thereon as the circumstances of the case
\njustify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or
\ncancelling the assessment or directing a fresh assessment.\n<\/p>\n
(2) The Additional Commissioner may on his own motion call for and examine
\nthe record of any proceedings under the Act, and if he considers that any
\norder passed therein by a Joint Commissioner, or an appellate authority of
\nthe rank of a Deputy Commissioner is erroneous in so far as it is
\nprejudicial to the interests of revenue, he may, if necessary, stay the
\noperation of such order for such period as he deems fit and after giving
\nthe assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to
\nbe made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the
\ncircumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or
\nmodifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment or directing a fresh
\nassessment.\n<\/p>\n
(3) The Joint Commissioner may on his own motion call for and examine the
\nrecord of proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order
\npassed therein by any officer who is not above the rank of Deputy
\nCommissioner is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests
\nof revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard
\nand after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary,
\npass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including
\nan order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the
\nassessment or directing a fresh assessment.\n<\/p>\n
(4) The power under sub-sections (1) to (3) shall be exercisable only
\nwithin a period of four years from the date of the order sought to be
\nrevised was passed.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation: In computing the period of limitation for the purpose of sub-
\nsection (4) any period during which any proceeding under this section is
\nstayed by an order or injunction of any Court shall be excluded.\n<\/p>\n
xxx<\/p>\n
15-B. Limitation in regard to passing orders in respect of certain
\nproceedings: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 6 and 15,
\nwhere any proceeding is initiated under Section 6 or any records have been
\ncalled for under Section 15, the authority referred to in the said sections
\nshall pass orders within a period of three years from the date of
\ninitiation of such proceedings or calling for the records, as the case may
\nbe:\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that in respect of the proceedings initiated or records
\n\tcalled for before the date of commencement of the Karnataka
\n\tTaxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1977, orders shall be passed within
\n\ta period of four years from such commencement.\n<\/p>\n
(2) In computing the period specified in sub-section(1), the period during
\nwhich a proceeding, has been deferred on account of any stay granted by any
\nCourt or any other authority shall be excluded.”\n<\/p>\n
7. A bare reading of section 15(1) indicates that the Commissioner,
\nAdditional Commissioner, Joint Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner could
\nsuo motu call for and examine the records of any proceedings under this Act
\nif he considered that any order passed therein by any officer subordinate
\nto him was erroneous so as to be prejudicial to the interest of the
\nrevenue, he was empowered to stay the operation of such order for such
\nperiod as he deemed fit and after giving the assessee an opportunity of
\nbeing heard and after making such inquiry, as he thought fit, could pass
\nsuch orders as the circumstances of the case would justify, including the
\norder enhancing or modifying the assessment or even cancelling the
\nassessment or even direct a fresh assessment. The pre-conditions to the
\nexercise of this suo motu powers were two fold, namely, error in the order
\npassed by an officer subordinate to the revisional authority and prejudice
\nto the interest of revenue. Once these two conditions stood fulfilled, the
\nrevisional authority was authorized to give an opportunity to the assessee
\nof being heard and after making such inquiry as he thought fit he could
\npass appropriate orders as the circumstances of the case would justify.
\nThis power was essentially a supervisory power. However, in order to
\nascertain whether the officer subordinate to him had passed an erroneous
\norder, which was also prejudicial to revenue, the Commissioner including
\nthe Additional Commissioner etc. was required to call for and examine the
\nrecord of such proceedings. Therefore, the revisional authority had to call
\nfor the records, he had to examine such records, he had to be satisfied
\nregarding fulfilment of the above two conditions and thereafter give
\nopportunity to the assessee of being heard and on making appropriate
\ninquiry the revisional authority was empowered to pass appropriate orders.
\nIt is important to note that under Section 15(1) there was no provision for
\ngiving a show cause notice as in the case of some other similar enactments.
\nHowever, the power under sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 15 was
\nexercisable only within four years from the date of the order sought to be
\nrevised. Under Section 15(4), therefore, a period of limitation was
\nprescribed. The revisional authority had to exercise its powers only within
\nfour years from the date when the order sought to be revised was passed.
\nTherefore, under Section 15(1) read with Section 15(4), there was no
\nprovision for issuance of a show cause notice. The reason is obvious.
\nSection 15(4) required the revisional authority to exercise its powers
\nwithin four years from the date of passing of the order sought to be
\nrevised. The concept of exercising the power is important, particularly in
\nthe absence of any provision for issuance of a show cause notice. When the
\nrevisional authority suo motu calls for the records for examination and
\nwhen he examines that records, the exercise of power under Section 15(4) of
\nthe Act takes place. This can be equated to initiation of proceedings.
\nThere is one more aspect which needs to be considered. Conceptually, there
\nis a distinction between initiation of proceedings and completion of
\nproceedings within the stipulated period. The limitation prescribed in
\nSection 15(4) was the limitation for initiation of proceedings whereas
\nlimitation prescribed in Section 15-B was in respect of completion of
\nproceedings within the prescribed period. In our view, a bare reading of
\nSection 15-B with the proviso indicates that Section 15-B was
\nretrospective. Firstly, the Head Note indicates limitation in regard to
\npassing of orders inter alia under Section 15. It stated clearly that,
\nnotwithstanding anything contained in Section 15, where any proceeding is
\ninitiated under Section 6 or where any records have been called for under
\nSection 15, the authority shall pass orders within a period of three years
\nfrom the date of calling for the records. The proviso clarified that in
\nrespect of proceedings in which records have been called for before the
\ndate of commencement of the Karnataka Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1997
\n(with effect from 1.4.1997) the revisional authority shall dispose of the
\nproceedings within a period of four years from such commencement. This
\nproviso indicates that proceedings in which records have been called for
\neven in cases falling before 1.4.1997 had to be disposed of within four
\nyears from the date of commencement of the (Amendment) Act<\/a>, 1997. In our
\nview, Section 15-B<\/a> indicated the dichotomy between initiation of
\nproceedings and completion of proceedings. The legislative intent was
\nclear. It demarcated two aspects, namely, commencement of proceedings and
\ncompletion of proceedings (outer limit). Section 15(4)<\/a> prescribed
\nlimitation for commencement of proceedings whereas Section 15-B<\/a> prescribed
\nlimitation for completion of the proceedings. We are required to keep in
\nmind that the Legislature intended maximum leeway in cases where an error
\nresulted in loss to revenue. In the circumstances, we are of the view that
\nunder the scheme of the 1979 Act, the initiation proceedings took place
\nwhen the revisional authority called for the records of the case from the
\nFirst Appellate Authority and, therefore, the jurisdiction stood exercised
\nwithin the period of limitation. Lastly, we may state that on 1.4.1997 in
\nthe present case the tax appeal against the order of the Revisional
\nAuthority was pending decision vide Tax Appeal No. E.T. 22\/96. Moreover,
\nthe law of limitation is generally procedural, hence, in our view, Section
\n15-B<\/a> was retrospective. For the above reasons, we find no infirmity in the
\nimpugned judgment of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
8. Before concluding, we may state that, as discussed above, the Karnataka
\nTax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979 prescribed limitation for initiation of
\nproceedings, it also prescribed limitation for completion of proceedings
\nunlike some other Acts under which the limitation prescribed was only in
\nrespect of completion of proceedings. We do not wish to comment about those
\nprovisions\/enactments. Our present judgment is confined strictly to the
\n1979 Act herein.\n<\/p>\n
9. For the aforestated reasons, we find no infirmity in the impugned
\njudgment of the Karnataka High Court and accordingly the civil appeal filed
\nby the assessee stands dismissed with no order as to costs. As regards the
\nmerits of the case, we express no opinion as the same have not been argued
\nbefore us.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India N. Ranga Rao And Sons vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 16 May, 2007 Author: Kapadia Bench: S.H. Kapadia, B. Sudershan Reddy CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5852 of 2006 PETITIONER: N. Ranga Rao and Sons RESPONDENT: State of Karnataka and Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/05\/2007 BENCH: S.H. Kapadia & B. […]<\/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-248398","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nN. Ranga Rao And Sons vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 16 May, 2007 - 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\/n-ranga-rao-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-16-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N. Ranga Rao And Sons vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 16 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ranga-rao-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-16-may-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-05-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-15T02:33:30+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-ranga-rao-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-16-may-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-ranga-rao-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-16-may-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N. Ranga Rao And Sons vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 16 May, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-15T02:33:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-ranga-rao-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-16-may-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2427,\"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\\\/n-ranga-rao-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-16-may-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-ranga-rao-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-16-may-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-ranga-rao-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-16-may-2007\",\"name\":\"N. Ranga Rao And Sons vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 16 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-15T02:33:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-ranga-rao-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-16-may-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-ranga-rao-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-16-may-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-ranga-rao-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-16-may-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N. Ranga Rao And Sons vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 16 May, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"N. Ranga Rao And Sons vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 16 May, 2007 - 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\/n-ranga-rao-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-16-may-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N. Ranga Rao And Sons vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 16 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ranga-rao-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-16-may-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-05-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-15T02:33:30+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ranga-rao-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-16-may-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ranga-rao-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-16-may-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N. Ranga Rao And Sons vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 16 May, 2007","datePublished":"2007-05-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-15T02:33:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ranga-rao-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-16-may-2007"},"wordCount":2427,"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\/n-ranga-rao-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-16-may-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ranga-rao-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-16-may-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ranga-rao-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-16-may-2007","name":"N. Ranga Rao And Sons vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 16 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-05-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-15T02:33:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ranga-rao-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-16-may-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ranga-rao-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-16-may-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-ranga-rao-and-sons-vs-state-of-karnataka-and-ors-on-16-may-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N. Ranga Rao And Sons vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 16 May, 2007"}]},{"@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\/248398","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=248398"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248398\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=248398"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=248398"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=248398"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}