{"id":252396,"date":"2011-08-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-visakaa-fabrics-private-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-august-2011"},"modified":"2015-06-21T22:46:49","modified_gmt":"2015-06-21T17:16:49","slug":"sri-visakaa-fabrics-private-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-visakaa-fabrics-private-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Sri Visakaa Fabrics Private … vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Sri Visakaa Fabrics Private … vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 August, 2011<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 12\/08\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA\n\nW.P(MD)No.8961 of 2007\nand\nMP(MD)No.1 of 2007\n\nSri Visakaa Fabrics Private Limited,\nrepresented by its Managing Director\nThiru.T.R.N.Sankaralingam.\nNo.120, Madurai Road,\nVirudhunagar.\t\t\t\t\t..Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.  State of Tamil Nadu,\n    represented by its Secretary to Government,\n    Energy Department,\n    Fort St.George,\n    Chennai.\n\n2.  The Chairman,\n    TamilNadu Electricity Board,\n    K.R.R.Maligai,\n    Chennai - 600 001.\n\n3.  The Superintending Engineer,\n    Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,\n    Ramamoorthy Road,\n    Virudhunagar.\t\t\t\t..Respondents.\t\t\t\n\nPrayer\n\nWrit Petition filed under Article 226<\/a> of the Constitution of India,\npraying this Court to issue a Writ of  Mandamus  directing the third respondent\nnot to charge E.Tax at 5% on Maximum Demand Charges from the Bills from the\nmonth of October 2007 onwards.\n\n!For Petitioner  ... M\/s.M.Md.Ibrahim Ali\n^For Respondents ... Mr.D.Muruganandam\n\t\t     Addl.Govt.Pleader\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, in the nature of Mandamus or
\nany other appropriate  writ directing to prohibiting the respondents from
\ncharging electricity tax at  5% on Maximum Demand Charges from the month of
\nOctober 2007 onwards, and thus render justice.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.  The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act<\/a>,  and
\nis consumer of electricity.  The petitioner obtained High Tension Power
\nconnection under tariff  1 as per the schedule to the Tamil Nadu  Revision of
\nTariff on Supply of Electrical Energy Act<\/a>, 1978.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.  The High Tension Service number  allotted to the petitioner is 244.
\nThe Government of Tamil Nadu enacted Act 4 of 1962, to levy tax on consumption
\nof electricity energy on certain categories of consumption in the state of
\nMadras.  Under Section 3(b)<\/a> of the  said ‘Act’ electricity tariff was calculated
\nat the rate mentioned therein in respect of High Tension supply.  The tax was
\nsubsequently enhanced to 35%. This act continued to be  in force till
\n30.04.1979.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. After appeal to the Government, the tax was regulated by different
\nGovernment orders. The validity of any of the order is not in question in this
\nWrit Petition.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. The Tamil nadu Electricity (Taxation and consumption) Amendment Act<\/a>,
\n1991 was introduced to levy additional tax on consumption of energy.  Finally,
\nthe State Legislature enacted Act 12 of 2003 called the Tamil Nadu Tax on
\nConsumption Or Sale of Electricity Act, 2003, and imposed electricity tax on
\nvarious categories of consumers, including the consumer having their own captive
\ngenerating plant, as well as generators etc.<\/p>\n
\t6. The case of the petitioner is that  in pursuance  of the powers
\nconferred under Electricity Act<\/a>, 2003, the State has imposed tax at the rate of
\n5% of the electricity consumed in the case of licensees.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. The petitioner is aggrieved by the levy of tax at the rate of 5%, which
\nhas been imposed in exercise of powers conferred by  clause(A) of sub-section
\n10<\/a>, and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption or Sale of Electricity
\nAct,2003, w.e.f. 16.06.2003\n<\/p>\n
\t8. The petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the Act,
\nunder which the power had been given to the State to impose tax even with
\nrespect to the generation of electricity by the consumers themselves.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. The constitutional validity  of Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption or Sale
\nof Electricity Act, 2003 has been upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court in the
\ncase of Southern petrochemical Industries company Limited .vs. Electricity
\nInspector and E.T.I.O and others<\/a> reported in 2007(3) CTC 273.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. The learned counsel for the petitioner only challenges the electricity
\ntax  at 5% on the Maximum Demand Charges, on the ground that the tax could only
\nbe claimed on the actual consumption, and not on Maximum Demand Charges.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. There is force in this contention of the learned counsel for the
\npetitioner.  The bill raised on the petitioner for the month of September  shows
\nelectricity tax at the rate of Rs.19,537\/-(Rupees Nineteen thousand five hundred
\nand thirty seven only) against the actual consumption of Rs.3,32,736\/-(Rupees
\nthree lakhs thirty two thousand seven hundred and thirty six only) which shows
\nthat the electricity tax has been demanded on the Maximum Demand Charges, and
\nnot to actual consumption.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Southern petrochemical
\nIndustries company Limited .vs. Electricity Inspector and E.T.I.O and others
\n(Supra<\/a>) has been please to lay down as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t153.  We have noticed hereinbefore that the legislative field carved out
\nby reason of Entry 53 of List II and Entry 38 of List III of the Seventh
\nschedule of the Constitution of India operate in different fields. The 1948 Act
\nwas enacted to provide for the rationalization of the production and supply of
\nelectricity, and generally for taking measures conducive to clerical
\ndevelopment.\n<\/p>\n
\t154.  Tariff is framed by the State Electricity Boards under Sections 46<\/a>
\nand 49<\/a> of the 1948 Act. They may have different considerations  for imposition
\nof tariffs.  We have noticed hereinbefore, the definition  of ‘tariff in BSES
\nLtd(Supra) whereupon Mr.Andhyarujina himself relied upon. A tax on tariff and a
\ntax on consumption or sale of electrical energy, thus, operate in different
\nfields, if it is to be held that the power of the Electricity Regulatory
\nCommission to fix tariff does not include a power to impose tax, automatically
\nthe same principle would apply also when a tax is sought to be levied on
\nconsumption or sale of electrical energy and not on tariff. Power of taxation,
\nas noticed hereinbefore, operates differently from power to impose tariff. A
\ntariff validly framed by the licensee, in exercise of its statutory power, may
\nlay down a higher rate on the sale of power to various types of consumers having
\nregard to the necessity to maintain infrastructure. A maximum demand charg, when
\nlevied, does not contemplate a sale or consumption of electrical energy. Maximum
\ntariff  is provided  for various reasons. It has been noticed by this Court in
\nIPI Steel Limited (supra) in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
\t” From this circumstance, however, one cannot jump to the conclusion that
\nit is an arbitrary way of levying consumption charges.  Normally speaking, a
\nfactory utilises energy at a broadly constant level. Maybe on certain
\noccasions,whether on account of breakdowns, strikes or shutdowns or for other
\nreasons, the factory may not utilise energy at the requisite level over certain
\nperiods,but these are exceptions. Every factory expects to work normally. So
\ndoes the Electricity Board expect and accordingly produces energy required by
\nthe factory and keeps it in readiness for that factory keeping it ready on tap,
\nso to speak.  As already emphasised, electricity  once generated cannot be
\nstored for future use.  This is the reason and the justification for the demand
\ncharges and the manner of charging for it. There is yet another justification
\nfor this type of levy and it is this demand charges and consumption charges are
\nintended to defray different items.  Broadly speaking, while demand charges are
\nmeant to defray the capital costs, consumption charges are supposed to meet the
\nrunning charges. Every  Electricity Board requires machinery, plant, equipment,
\nsub-stations, transmission lines and so on, all of which require a huge capital
\noutlay.  The Board like any other corporations has to raise funds for the
\npurpose which means it has to obtain loans. The loans have to be repaid, and
\nwith interest.  Provision has to be made for depreciation of machinery equipment
\nand buildings, plants, machines, stations and transmission lines have to be
\nmaintained, all of which require a huge staff. it is to meet the capital outlay
\nthat demand charges are levied and collected whereas the consumption charges are
\nlevied and collected to meet the running charges.\n<\/p>\n
11. Pausing here for a moment, we may explain the importance and significance of
\nmaximum demand. The maximum demand of a given plant factory determines the type
\nof lines to be laid and the power of transformers and other equipment to be
\ninstalled for the purpose. A factory having a maximum demand say 1000 KVA and a
\nfactory  having a maximum demand of 10,000 KVA require different type of lines
\nand other equipment for providing supply to them. In the case of latter, lines
\nhave to be of a more load-bearing variety.\n<\/p>\n
Transformers have to be installed and of more capacity. Sometimes in the case of
\nbulk consumers even a sub-station may have to be  established exclusively for
\nsuch factory\/plaint. Very often these industries are situated away from power
\nstations and main transmission lines which means  laying special power lines
\nover considerable distances to give the supply connection. As a matter of fact,
\nthe significance of the maximum demand would be evident from the fact  that the
\nagreement between the Board and consumer(like the respondent)specifies only the
\nmaximum demand and not the total units allowed to be consumed.  The agreement
\nconcerned herein prescribes  the maximum demand at 7778 KVA but does not
\nprescribe the total number of units of energy allowed to be consumed,. This is
\nfor  the reasons, explains Shri Hegde, that the total number of units of energy
\nconsumed is determined by the load\/level at which power is drawn. The formula,
\ntaking the case of the respondent is stated to be  100% KVA x power factor x
\nload factor x total number of hours in a year. In concrete terms, it means 7778
\nKVAx0-90×0.611×8760=37,467,590 KWH(Units)-37,467.59 MU(Million Units) This
\nformula, as it states expressly, is premised on unrestricted supply. Problems
\narise only  when restrictions are placed on consumption on account of fall in
\nproduction of electricity by the Board, as would be explained hereinafter.”\n<\/p>\n
\t161.  The reason for insertion of such an explanation is to get over the
\ndecision of this Court in State of Madras .vs. Gannon Dunkerley and
\nCompany(Madras) Limited<\/a>, 1959 SCR 379, wherein it has been held that tax cannot
\nbe imposed on sale of materials transferred in execution of a works contract
\nstating<\/p>\n
\t” In our opinion, that is not the  inference to be drawn from the absence
\nof words linking up the meaning of the word”sale” with what it might that the
\nexpression “sale of goods” in Entry 48 should bear the precise and definite
\nmeaning it has in law, and that that meaning should not be left to fluctuate
\nwith the definition  of “sale” in laws relating to sale of goods which might be
\nin force for the time being. It was then said that  in some of  the Entries, for
\nexample, Entries 31 and 49, List II, the word “sale” was used in a wider sense
\nthan in the Sale of Goods Act<\/a>, 1930. Entry 31 intoxicating  liquors and narcotic
\ndrugs that is to say, the production, manufacture, possession, transport,
\npurchase and sale  of intoxicating liquors, opium and other  narcotic drugs…”.
\nThe argument is that “sale” in the Entry must be interpreted as including
\nbarter, as the policy of law cannot be to prohibit transfers of liquor only when
\nthere is money consideration  therefor. But this argument proceeds on a
\nmisapprehension of the principles on which the Entries are drafted. The scheme
\nof the drafting is that there is in the beginning of the Entry words of general
\nimport and they are followed by words having reference to particular  aspects
\nthereof. The operation of the general words, however, is not cut down by reason
\nof the fact that there are sub-heads dealing with specific aspects.\n<\/p>\n
\t169.  Our attention has been drawn to a simple bill, from a perusal
\nwhereof it appears that although permitted MD was 350 KVA, the recorded demand
\nbeing 144 KVA,electricity tax was charged only on the basis of 144 KVA and not
\non the basis of 350 KVA. Keeping in view the faft that the maximum demand
\npostulates something other than actual delivery of electricity, the question of
\nimposition of any tax thereupon does not  arise. The decision of this Court in
\nM\/s.Northern India Iron and Steel Co(supra) did not assign any reason.  The said
\ndecision did not take into consideration the provisions of Article 366(12)<\/a> of
\nthe Constitution of India or the effect of Entry 53 of List II of the Seventh
\nSchedule of the Constitution of India. It has also not been taken into
\nconsideration that the state cannot impose tax  only because the State
\nElectricity Board would be entitled to levy tax on certain services. It would
\nbear  repetition to state that the concept of tariff and tax is different.
\nWhereas, tariff would include a list of charges, the tax must be on actual
\nbasis.  it is also  not the case nor can it be that imposition of tax on actual
\nsale or consumption of electrical energy was impossible keeping in view of the
\nparticular fact situation.  As noticed hereinbefore, two different meters are
\ninstalled;one, for the purpose of actual consumption of electrical energy and
\nanother being a trivector, the same merely records the maximum demand.”\n<\/p>\n
\t12.  In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Honourable  Supreme
\nCourt, the demand of electricity tax on Maximum Demand Charges, cannot be
\nsustained.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.  Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed. The Demand of electricity
\nTax on Maximum Demand Charges is set aside. The respondents are directed to
\nrecalculate  the electricity on the actual consumption of electricity w.e.f.
\nSeptember 2007 and the amount if any deposited by the petitioner be adjusted
\nagainst the  tax which may ultimately be due.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. In case, it is found  that the petitioner has paid in excess, than tax
\ndue,  the amount be either refunded  to the petitioner, or adjusted against the
\nfurture bills.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
vsn<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  State of Tamil Nadu,
\n    represented by its Secretary to Government,
\n    Energy Department,
\n    Fort St.George,
\n    Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Chairman,
\n    TamilNadu Electricity Board,
\n    K.R.R.Maligai,
\n    Chennai – 600 001.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Superintending Engineer,
\n    Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
\n    Ramamoorthy Road,
\n    Virudhunagar.\t\t<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Sri Visakaa Fabrics Private … vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 August, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12\/08\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P(MD)No.8961 of 2007 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2007 Sri Visakaa Fabrics Private Limited, represented by its Managing Director Thiru.T.R.N.Sankaralingam. No.120, Madurai Road, […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-252396","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri Visakaa Fabrics Private ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 August, 2011 - 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\/sri-visakaa-fabrics-private-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri Visakaa Fabrics Private ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-visakaa-fabrics-private-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-august-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-21T17:16:49+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-visakaa-fabrics-private-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-visakaa-fabrics-private-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri Visakaa Fabrics Private … vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-21T17:16:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-visakaa-fabrics-private-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2127,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-visakaa-fabrics-private-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-visakaa-fabrics-private-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-visakaa-fabrics-private-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Sri Visakaa Fabrics Private ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-21T17:16:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-visakaa-fabrics-private-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-visakaa-fabrics-private-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-visakaa-fabrics-private-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri Visakaa Fabrics Private … vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Sri Visakaa Fabrics Private ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 August, 2011 - 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\/sri-visakaa-fabrics-private-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Visakaa Fabrics Private ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-visakaa-fabrics-private-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-21T17:16:49+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-visakaa-fabrics-private-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-visakaa-fabrics-private-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri Visakaa Fabrics Private … vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-21T17:16:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-visakaa-fabrics-private-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-august-2011"},"wordCount":2127,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-visakaa-fabrics-private-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-visakaa-fabrics-private-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-visakaa-fabrics-private-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-august-2011","name":"Sri Visakaa Fabrics Private ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-21T17:16:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-visakaa-fabrics-private-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-visakaa-fabrics-private-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-visakaa-fabrics-private-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-12-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri Visakaa Fabrics Private … vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 August, 2011"}]},{"@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\/252396","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=252396"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252396\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=252396"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=252396"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=252396"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}