{"id":26101,"date":"2007-09-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-greaves-limited-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-4-september-2007"},"modified":"2016-12-28T10:33:57","modified_gmt":"2016-12-28T05:03:57","slug":"crompton-greaves-limited-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-4-september-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-greaves-limited-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-4-september-2007","title":{"rendered":"Crompton Greaves Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner &#8230; on 4 September, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Crompton Greaves Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner &#8230; on 4 September, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n                              \n                       DATED: 04.09.2007\n                              \n                            CORAM\n                              \n            THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN\n                              \n               Writ Petition No.28606 of 2007\n                              \n                              \n\n\nCrompton Greaves Limited\nrepresented by its Senior Finance Manager G.Vijayakumar\nNo.3 \nDr.MGR Salai\nChennai 600 034             \t\t\t\t..Petitioner\n                              \n                              \n           Vs.\n\n\n1. The Assistant Commissioner (C.T.)\n   Fast Track Assessment Circle III\n   Greams Road\n   Chennai 600 006.\n\n2. The Deputy Commissioner (CT) (Appeals)\n   III Floor\n   Wavoo Complex\n   No.191\n   N.S.C. Bose Road\n   Chennai 600 001.               \t\t\t..Respondents\n\n\n\n\n      This  writ petition is filed under Article 226 of  the\nConstitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ  of\nCertiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the files\nof  the second respondent herein in A.P.No.57 of 2005, dated\n22.3.2006,  and  quash the same while directing  the  second\nrespondent to re-dispose the appeal in A.P.No.57 of 2005.\n\n\n\n     For petitioner  : Mr.N.Inbarajan\n\n     For respondents : Mr.Haja Nazirudeen, Special Government Pleader (Tax)\n\n\n\n\n                          O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>      1.  Mr.Haja  Nazirudeen,  Special  Government  Pleader<\/p>\n<p>(Tax), takes notice for the respondents.<\/p>\n<p>      2.  With the consent of the learned counsels appearing<\/p>\n<p>on  either  side, the writ petition is taken  up  for  final<\/p>\n<p>disposal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>      3. Heard Mr.N.Inbarajan, the learned counsel appearing<\/p>\n<p>for  the  petitioner as well as Mr.Haja Nazirudeen,  Special<\/p>\n<p>Government Pleader (Tax), for the respondents.<\/p>\n<p>      4.  It  is submitted by the petitioners that they  are<\/p>\n<p>executing  works  contracts for various private  and  public<\/p>\n<p>sector  undertakings. The petitioners  are  also  registered<\/p>\n<p>dealers  on  the files of the Assistant Commissioner  (C.T),<\/p>\n<p>Fast Track Assessment Circle, Chennai.<\/p>\n<p>      5.  It is also submitted that their assessment for the<\/p>\n<p>year CST\/2001-02, was completed by the first respondent,  on<\/p>\n<p>27.6.2005.  During the relevant assessment  year,  they  had<\/p>\n<p>supplied  engineering  goods to Power  Grid  Corporation  of<\/p>\n<p>India  Limited. Under the Supply Agreement, dated 24.4.2000,<\/p>\n<p>the  petitioner had effected supplies by two modes,  namely,<\/p>\n<p>(i)  direct supplies from their factory situated  at  Ambad,<\/p>\n<p>Nasik,  kanjur &#8211; Mumbai &#8211; Maharashtra State, and (ii)  sales<\/p>\n<p>in transit effected by them on supplies made by vendors.<\/p>\n<p>      6.  It  is  further submitted that for all the  direct<\/p>\n<p>supplies  made  by the petitioners, they have  remitted  the<\/p>\n<p>appropriate Central Sales Tax in the despatching State  with<\/p>\n<p>the   Assessing  Officer,  Mumbai\/Nasik  Assessment  Circle.<\/p>\n<p>Similarly,  the  vendors have also remitted the  appropriate<\/p>\n<p>Central Sales Tax in their states with regard to the sale in<\/p>\n<p>transit  effected by the petitioners. The vendors  are  also<\/p>\n<p>registered dealers in various states.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>     7. It is further stated that the petitioners had made a<\/p>\n<p>claim,  under Section 6(2)(b) of The Central Sales Tax  Act,<\/p>\n<p>1956,  in  respect of the sale in transit effected by  them.<\/p>\n<p>The petitioners are required to issue Form-C declarations to<\/p>\n<p>the vendor and obtain E-1 declaration forms from the vendors<\/p>\n<p>and  the  said  forms are to be submitted to  the  Assessing<\/p>\n<p>Authority,  the  first respondent herein.  Accordingly,  the<\/p>\n<p>petitioners  had  claimed  exemption  on  the  turnover   of<\/p>\n<p>Rs.8,07,58,834\/- in the course of their original assessment,<\/p>\n<p>dated  27.6.2005.  The  first  respondent  had  granted  the<\/p>\n<p>exemption on the turnover of Rs.6,31,56,527\/-. The exemption<\/p>\n<p>was  granted in page seven of the original assessment order,<\/p>\n<p>dated  27.6.2005. Exemption was not granted on  the  balance<\/p>\n<p>turnover on the ground of non-submission of forms.<\/p>\n<p>       8.   Against  the  assessment  order  of  the   first<\/p>\n<p>respondent,  dated 27.6.2005, the petitioners  had  filed  a<\/p>\n<p>first  appeal  before  the appellate authority,  the  second<\/p>\n<p>respondent herein.  The hearing of the appeal was conducted,<\/p>\n<p>on  15.3.2006.  The  petitioners  had  appeared  before  the<\/p>\n<p>appellate  authority  through  their  Chartered  Accountant,<\/p>\n<p>Mr.V.Narendran, and had submitted that the declaration forms<\/p>\n<p>could not be obtained on the balance turnover. However,  the<\/p>\n<p>hearing  of  the  appeal  was concluded  on  the  same  day.<\/p>\n<p>Thereafter,  by  an  order,  in  Ap.No.57  of  2005,   dated<\/p>\n<p>22.3.2006,  the second respondent had, for the  first  time,<\/p>\n<p>stated  that  the  petitioner had  erroneously  claimed  the<\/p>\n<p>exemption on the entire turnover of Rs.8,07,58,834\/-.<\/p>\n<p>      9.  The second respondent had proceeded to discuss the<\/p>\n<p>question  of  eligibility  of the petitioners  even  on  the<\/p>\n<p>turnover,  which  was  not disputed before  him  in  appeal.<\/p>\n<p>Thus, the second respondent had decided the issue without  a<\/p>\n<p>show  cause notice and without giving an opportunity to  the<\/p>\n<p>petitioners  stating  that  the  sale  in  transit  was  not<\/p>\n<p>allowable on the entire turnover of Rs.8,07,58,834\/-,  based<\/p>\n<p>on  the  various  reasons stated therein.  Even  though  the<\/p>\n<p>second respondent, in his appeal order, dated 22.3.2006, had<\/p>\n<p>stated  that  he  was  remitting  the  matter  back  to  the<\/p>\n<p>Assessing  Authority for a fresh assessment, the conclusions<\/p>\n<p>drawn  by  the  second respondent against  the  petitioners,<\/p>\n<p>between pages 6 and 9 of his appellate order, without a show<\/p>\n<p>cause  notice or opportunity being given to the petitioners,<\/p>\n<p>is  contrary  to law and the principles of natural  justice.<\/p>\n<p>Therefore,  the impugned appeal order, dated  22.3.2006,  is<\/p>\n<p>illegal and invalid and liable to be set aside.<\/p>\n<p>       10.  The  only  contention  of  the  learned  counsel<\/p>\n<p>appearing   for  the  petitioners  is  that  the   Appellate<\/p>\n<p>Authority  had  made  certain remarks, with  regard  to  the<\/p>\n<p>enhanced  tax payable by the petitioner, without  giving  an<\/p>\n<p>opportunity to the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>      11.  Mr.Haja  Nazirudeen, Special Government  Pleader,<\/p>\n<p>(Tax)   appearing for the respondents, has not  refuted  the<\/p>\n<p>claims made by the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>      12.  In  such  circumstances, the  impugned  appellate<\/p>\n<p>order,  dated 22.3.2006, passed by the second respondent  in<\/p>\n<p>Ap.No.57 of 2005, is set aside, and the second respondent is<\/p>\n<p>directed to decide the Appeal in Ap.No.57 of 2005, on merits<\/p>\n<p>and  in  accordance  with  law and pass  appropriate  orders<\/p>\n<p>thereon,  after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing  to<\/p>\n<p>the  petitioners within a period of six weeks from the  date<\/p>\n<p>of receipt of a copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>      With  the  above  directions,  the  writ  petition  is<\/p>\n<p>disposed of.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>lan<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>1. The Assistant Commissioner (C.T.)<br \/>\n   Fast Track Assessment Circle III<br \/>\n   Greams Road<br \/>\n   Chennai 600 006.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The Deputy Commissioner (CT) (Appeals)<br \/>\n   III Floor<br \/>\n   Wavoo Complex<br \/>\n   No.191<br \/>\n   N.S.C. Bose Road<br \/>\n   Chennai 600 001.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Crompton Greaves Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner &#8230; on 4 September, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.09.2007 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.28606 of 2007 Crompton Greaves Limited represented by its Senior Finance Manager G.Vijayakumar No.3 Dr.MGR Salai Chennai 600 034 ..Petitioner Vs. 1. The [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-26101","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Crompton Greaves Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner ... on 4 September, 2007 - 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\/crompton-greaves-limited-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-4-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Crompton Greaves Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner ... on 4 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-greaves-limited-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-4-september-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-28T05:03:57+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/crompton-greaves-limited-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-4-september-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/crompton-greaves-limited-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-4-september-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Crompton Greaves Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner &#8230; on 4 September, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-28T05:03:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/crompton-greaves-limited-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-4-september-2007\"},\"wordCount\":820,\"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\\\/crompton-greaves-limited-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-4-september-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/crompton-greaves-limited-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-4-september-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/crompton-greaves-limited-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-4-september-2007\",\"name\":\"Crompton Greaves Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner ... on 4 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-28T05:03:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/crompton-greaves-limited-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-4-september-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/crompton-greaves-limited-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-4-september-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/crompton-greaves-limited-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-4-september-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Crompton Greaves Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner &#8230; on 4 September, 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":"Crompton Greaves Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner ... on 4 September, 2007 - 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\/crompton-greaves-limited-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-4-september-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Crompton Greaves Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner ... on 4 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-greaves-limited-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-4-september-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-28T05:03:57+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-greaves-limited-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-4-september-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-greaves-limited-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-4-september-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Crompton Greaves Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner &#8230; on 4 September, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-28T05:03:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-greaves-limited-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-4-september-2007"},"wordCount":820,"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\/crompton-greaves-limited-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-4-september-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-greaves-limited-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-4-september-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-greaves-limited-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-4-september-2007","name":"Crompton Greaves Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner ... on 4 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-28T05:03:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-greaves-limited-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-4-september-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-greaves-limited-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-4-september-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/crompton-greaves-limited-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-4-september-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Crompton Greaves Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner &#8230; on 4 September, 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\/26101","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=26101"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26101\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26101"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26101"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26101"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}