{"id":262422,"date":"1973-04-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1973-04-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-h-m-esufall-h-m-abdulali-on-18-april-1973"},"modified":"2019-01-07T16:47:32","modified_gmt":"2019-01-07T11:17:32","slug":"commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-h-m-esufall-h-m-abdulali-on-18-april-1973","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-h-m-esufall-h-m-abdulali-on-18-april-1973","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, … vs M\/S. H.M. Esufall, H. M. Abdulali, … on 18 April, 1973"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, … vs M\/S. H.M. Esufall, H. M. Abdulali, … on 18 April, 1973<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 2266, 1973 SCR (3)1005<\/div>\n
Author: K Hegde<\/div>\n
Bench: Hegde, K.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES-TAX, MADHYA PRADESH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/S. H.M. ESUFALL, H. M. ABDULALI, SIYAGANJ, INDORE\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT18\/04\/1973\n\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\n\nCITATION:\n 1973 AIR 2266\t\t  1973 SCR  (3)1005\n 1973 SCC  (2) 137\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1977 SC 870\t (9)\n RF\t    1987 SC 793\t (7)\n\n\nACT:\nMadhya Pradesh Sales Tax Act s. 19--Reassessment of  escaped\nturnover   whether   can   be  made  on\t  basis\t  of   'best\njudgment'--Best\t judgment' what is--Estimate of turnover  in\n'best  judgment'  assessment--Interference  by\tcourt\twhen\njustified.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  assessee  was  a dealer in Iron  and  Steel  in  Madhya\nPradesh.   The\tSales  Tax Officer in  making  the  original\nassessment  for the period November 1, 1959 to\tOctober\t 20,\n1960   accepted\t the,  gross  turnover\tdisclosed   by\t the\nassessee's  accounts.  Later the Flying Squad inspected\t the\nbusiness premises of the assessee and found a bill book\t for\nthe  period  September 1, 1960 to September 19,\t 1960.\t The\nbill  book  showed that the assessee had effected  sales  of\niron  and  steel  during that period of\t the  value  of\t Rs.\n31,171.28  P. Those sales had not been entered in the  books\nof account maintained by the assessee.\tOn the basis of\t the\ninformation  provided  by the said bill book the  Sales\t Tax\nOfficer 'initiated proceedings under s. 19(1) of the  Madhya\nPradesh General Sales Tax Act 1958 as also under the Central\nSales Tax Act<\/a> 1956 against the assessee.  After hearing\t the\nassessee he made reassessments on best judgment basis and in\nestimating  the assessee's turnover took into  consideration\nthe fact that the assessee had dealings outside his accounts\nof the value of Rs. 31,171.28P. during a period of 19  days.\nAfter  the disposal of appeals filed by the  assessee  under\nthe Act a reference was made to the High Court.\t Inter\talia\nthe  High Court held that the estimate of  taxable  turnover\nunder  the  local  Act\tand the\t Central  Act<\/a>  made  by\t the\nassessing authority for the period from November 1, 1959  to\nOctober\t 20,  1960  on the basis of Rs.\t 31,171.28  Pas\t the\nescaped\t turnover  for a period of 19 days was\tillegal\t and\nunjustified.   According  to the High Court the\t only  moved\nescapement  was\t Rs. 31,171.28 The penalty  imposed  on\t the\nassessee in respect of the turnover under the State Act<\/a>\t was\nalso set aside by the High Court.  In appeal by the Revenue,\nHELD  :\t (i)  The  distinction\tbetween\t a  'best  judgment'\nassessment and assessment based on accounts submitted by  an\nassessee  must\tbe  borne in mind.  Sometime  there  may  be\ninnocent  or trivial mistakes in the accounts maintained  by\nthe  assessee.\t There\tmay be even  certain  unintended  or\nunimportant  omissions\tin  those  accounts,  but  yet\t the\naccounts  may  be  accepted  as\t genuine  and  substantially\ncorrect.   In  such cases, the assessments are made  on\t the\nbasis  of the accounts maintained even though the  assessing\nofficer\t may  add back to the account price  of\t items\tthat\nmight have been omitted to be included in the accounts.\t  In\nsuch  a case, the assessment made is not  a  'best-judgment'\nassessment.   It  is  primarily made on\t the  basis  of\t the\naccounts maintained by the assessee.  But when the assessing\nofficer\t comes\tto the conclusion that no  reliance  can  be\nplaced\ton  the\t accounts maintained  by  the  assessee,  he\nproceeds  to assess the assessee on the basis of his  'best-\njudgment'.  In doing so, he may take such assistance as\t the\nassessee's  accounts may afford, he may also rely  on  other\ninformations  gathered by him as well as on the\t surrounding\ncircumstances of the case.  The assessment Made on the\n1006\nbasis  of  assessee's  accounts and  those  made  on  'best-\njudgment' basis are 'totally different types of assessments.\n[1009 G]\nIn  the present case it was proved as well as admitted\tthat\nthe  assessee's\t ;dealings  outside his\t accounts  during  a\nperiod, of 19 days were of the nature of Rs. 31,171.28. From\nthis  circumstance it was open to the Sales-tax\t Officer  to\ninfer that the assessee had large scale dealings outside his\naccounts.   It\twas obvious that he  was  maintaining  false\naccounts to evade payment of sales-tax.\t In such a situation\nit  was not possible for the Sales-tax Officer to  find\t out\nprecisely  the turnover suppressed.  He could only  make  an\nestimate  of  the suppressed turnover on the  basis  of\t the\nmaterial  before him.  So long as the estimate made  by\t him\nwas  not arbitrary and has nexus with facts discovered,\t the\nsame could ,not be questioned.\tThe High Court was wrong  in\nassuming  that\tthe assessing authority must  have  material\nbefore\tit to prove exact turnover  suppressed.\t  The  basis\nadopted by the Sales-tax Officer was a relevant one  whether\nit  was the most appropriate or not.  Hence the\t High  Court\nwas not justified in interfering with the same. [1010 D]\nCommissioner of Income-tax, Central and U.P. v.\t Laxminarain\nBadridas<\/a>.,  5 I.T.R. 170, Raghubar Mandal Harihar Mandal  v.\nThe  State of Bihar<\/a>, 8 S.T..C. 770, Ganga Ram  Balmokand  v.\nCommissioner of Income-tax, Punjab, 5, I.T.R. 464 and  State\nof Kerala v. C. Velukutty<\/a>, 60 I.T.R. 239, applied.\nCommissioner   of  income-tax  West  Bengal  v.\t  Padamchand\nRamgopal<\/a>, 76 I.T.R. 719, distinguished.\n(ii) The  contention  that in a reassessment made  under  s.\n19(1)  of the Act the Sales Tax Officer is not competent  to\nmake a best judgment assessment was rightly rejected by\t the\nHigh Court.  Reassessment is nothing but a fresh assessment,\n[1014 B]\n (iii) Since 'the estimate of turnover made by the Sales Tax\nOfficer\t in  his  best judgment\t assessment  was  legal\t and\njustified  the\tpenalty imposed by him under the  State\t Act<\/a>\nmust also be held to be in accordance with Law.\nState of Andhra Pradesh v. Bavuri V. Narasimhan, 16 S. T. C.\n54, relied on.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  Civil Appeal No. 1068 &\t1069
\nof 1970.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals\t by special leave from the judgment and order  dated
\nDecember  2,  1968  of\tthe Madhya  Pradesh  High  Court  in
\nMisc.C.Case No. 84 of 1968.\n<\/p>\n
Ram Panjwani and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant.
\nR. P. Agarwala, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nHEGDE  J.  These  appeals by Special leave  arise  from\t the
\ndecision   of  the  High  Court\t of  Madhya  Pradesh  in   a
\nconsolidated  Reference\t under S. 44 of the  Madhya  Pradesh
\nGeneral\t Sales Tax Act, 1958 (to be hereinafter referred  to
\nas  the ‘State Act<\/a>‘).  That Reference was made by the  Board
\nof Revenue, Gwalior, partly at the instance of the  assessee
\nand partly at the instance of the
\n1007<\/span>
\nCommissioner, of ‘Sales-tax, ‘Madhya Pradesh, Four questions
\nof  law\t were refered to the High Court\t for  its  decision.
\nThey ‘are
\n\t      “(1)  ‘Whether on the facts and  circumstances
\n\t      of  the case the revised assessment  enhancing
\n\t      the  taxable turnover under the  State’law  by
\n\t      Rs. 2,50,000\/’- and the taxable turnover under
\n\t      the  Central law by Rs. 1,00,000\/on the  basis
\n\t      of the undisputed escape in the amount of\t Rs.
\n\t      31,171.28\t by.  adopting the said\t amount\t of:
\n\t      escaped\tturnover   as\tthe   measure\t for
\n\t      determining the quantum of enhancement for the
\n\t      whole   year  was\t illegal,   unjustified\t  or
\n\t      excessive?\n<\/p>\n
\t      (2)\t    -Whether\ta   best    judgment
\n\t      assessment could at all be made under s. 19(1)<\/a>
\n\t      1f<\/a>   the\tAct  or\t whether  revision  of\t the
\n\t      assessment  should be confined to the  quantum
\n\t      of proved or admitted escaped turnover ?\n<\/p>\n
\t      (3)\t    If\tthe answer to  the  previous
\n\t      question\tis that ,the revision in  assessment
\n\t      should  be  confined only to  the\t quantum  of
\n\t      proved or admitted escape in turnover, was the
\n\t      ‘penalty of Rs. 2,000\/- imposed on the footing
\n\t      of  the  revision\t of the assessment  for\t the
\n\t      whole year legal and justified? and
\n\t       (4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of
\n\t      the  case the imposition of the penalty  under
\n\t      section  19(1) of the Madhya  Pradesh  General
\n\t      Sales Tax Act, 1958 read with Section 9(3)<\/a>  of
\n\t      the Central Sales Tax Act was not legal?’
\nThe first three questions were referred to the High Court at
\nthe  instance of the assessee and the last one was  referred
\nat the instance of the Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n
The  High  Court answered the 1st and the  3rd\tquestion  in
\nfavour\tof  the\t assessee  and the  second  and\t the  fourth
\nquestion in favour of the Department.  It opined :\n<\/p>\n
\t      ” Our answer to the first question is that the
\n\t      estimate\tof taxable turnover under the  local
\n\t      Act and the Central Act<\/a> made by die  assessing
\n\t      authority\t for  the period from  1st  November
\n\t      1959 to 20th October 1960 on the basis of\t Rs.
\n\t      31,171.28 as the escaped turnover for a period
\n\t      of  19 days was illegal and unjustified.\t The
\n\t      escaped turnover proved in the present case is
\n\t      only Rs. 31,171.28 and the assessee is  liable
\n\t      to be assessed under both the Acts only on the
\n\t      taxable  turnover\t comprised  in\tthe  escaped
\n\t      turnover\tof Rs. 31,171.28. Our answer to\t the
\n\t      second  question is that there can be a  best-
\n\t      judgment assessment under section 19(1)<\/a> of the
\n\t      local Act.  In a best-judgment assessment\t the
\n\t      quantum  of  escaped turnover  would  be\tthat
\n\t      which the assessing authority thinks is proved
\n\t      1008<\/span>
\n\t      or  is established.  In other assessments\t the
\n\t      quantum  of escaped turnover would be the\t one
\n\t      which  the  assessing authority  finds  proved
\n\t      whether on the admission of the assessee or on
\n\t      the material produced at the enquiry in  which
\n\t      the  assessee  has  participated.\t  The  third
\n\t      question\tis  answered  by  saying  that\t the
\n\t      imposed penalty of Rs. 2,000\/- is, in view  of
\n\t      our  answer to the first question, not  legal.
\n\t      Our  answer to the fourth question is  that  a
\n\t      penalty  for  escaped  assessment\t under\t the
\n\t      Central Act<\/a> can be imposed under Section 19(1)<\/a>
\n\t      of the local Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Aggrieved   by\t the  decision\tof  the\t High\tCourt,\t the
\nCommissioner  has brought these appeals.  The  assessee\t has
\nnot appealed against that portion of the decision which went
\nagainst him.\n<\/p>\n
The facts of the, case necessary for deciding the  questions
\nof  law arising for decision in these appeals, as  could  be
\ngathered from the Statement of the case may now be set out.
\nThe  assessee was a registered dealer under the ‘State\tAct<\/a>‘
\nas well as the Central Sales Tax Act<\/a> (which will hereinafter
\nbe  referred to as the ‘Central Act<\/a>‘).\tHe was a  dealer  in
\nIron and Steel.\t In these appeals, we are concerned with his
\nturnover  for  the period November 1, 1959  to\tOctober\t 20,
\n1960.\tIn  that year he declared a gross  turnover  of\t Rs.
\n3,97,356\/18  and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,10,246\/63P.\t The
\nSales-tax  Officer  determined\this gross  turnover  at\t Rs.
\n3,97,357\/-  and taxable turnover at Rs.\t 1,21,567\/-.   Under
\nthe ‘State Act<\/a>‘ he assessed him in the sum of Rs. 3,743.34P.
\non  November  20, 1961.\t The assessee had not  declared\t his
\ngross or taxable turnover in respect of the year in question
\nunder  the ‘Central Act<\/a>‘.  But the Sales-tax Officer  deter-
\nmined  his  turnover under the ‘Central Act<\/a>‘  by  his  order
\ndated  December 8, 1962 at Rs. 22,916\/- and levied on him  a
\ntax of Rs. 252.04. The assessee did not appeal against these
\norders.\t  It appears that on September 19, 1963\t the  Flying
\nSquad  inspected the business premises of the  assessee\t and
\nfound  a  Bill\tbook for the period  September\t1,  1960  to
\nSeptember 19, 1960.  The Bill book showed that the  assessee
\nhad  effected sales of iron and steel during that period  of
\nthe  value  of\tRs. 31,171.28P. Those  sales  had  not\tbeen
\nentered- in the books of account maintained by the assessee.
\nOn  the basis of the information provided by the  bill\tbook
\nseized, the Sales-tax Officer initiated proceedings under s.
\n19(1)<\/a> of the ‘State Act<\/a>‘ on January 15, 1964 by issuing\t the
\nprescribed  notices  to\t the assessee.\t He  also  initiated
\nproceedings  under that section under the ‘Central  Act<\/a>‘  on
\nMarch 15, 1964.\t The notices in question were served on\t the
\nassessee on April 17, 1964 and March 19, 1964  respectively.
\nIn  response  to these notices, the  assessee  submitted  an
\nexplanation   denying  that  the;  bill\t book  in   question
\npertained  to his dealings.  Further, he also  disputed\t the
\ncorrectness  of the estimates made by the Sales-tax  Officer
\nof
\n1009<\/span>
\nhis  turnovers in the notices issued to him.  After  hearing
\nthe assessee, the Sales-tax Officer reassessed the  assessee
\nunder  the  ‘State  Ace\t on April 20,  1964  and  under\t the
\n‘Central  Act<\/a>‘\ton April 30, 1964.  The\t reassessments\twere
\nmade  on  the basis of ‘best judgment.\t In  estimating\t the
\nassessee’s   turnover,\tthe  Sales-tax\tOfficer\t took\tinto
\nconsideration  the  fact  that\tthe  assessee  had  dealings
\noutside his accounts of the value of Rs. 31,171.28 during  a
\nperiod\tof  19\tdays.  On the basis afforded  by  the  facts
\ndiscovered,  the Sales-tax Officer estimated the  assessee’s
\nturnover under the ‘State Act<\/a>‘ for the assessment period  in
\nquestion  at Rs.6,47,357\/(3,97,357, + 2,50,000).   Similarly
\nhe  reopened  the assessee’s assessment under  the  ‘Central
\nAct<\/a>,  and estimated the turnover of the assessee under\tthat
\nAct at Rs. 1,22,916\/- (22,916+1,00,000).  He also imposed on
\nthe assessee a penalty of Rs. 2,000\/- under the ‘State\tAct<\/a>‘
\nand  a\tpenalty of Rs. 1,500\/- under the ‘Central  Act<\/a>‘\t The
\nassessee  appealed against the reassessments made on him  as
\nwell as against the penalties imposed on him.  Those appeals
\nwere  dismissed\t by the Appellate authority.   The  assessee
\ntook up the matter in second appeal to the Board of Revenue,
\nMadhya Pradesh, Gwalior.  The Board of Revenue set aside the
\npenalty of Rs. 1500\/-imposed under the ‘Central Act<\/a>, but  in
\nother  respects.  it rejected the appeal  of  the  assessee.
\nThereafter the Board, partly at the instance of the assessee
\nand  partly at the instance of the  Commissioner,  submitted
\nthe four questions set out earlier to the High Court.
\nBefore\tproceeding  to examine the contentions\tadvanced  on
\nbehalf\tof the parties, it is necessary to  clarify  certain
\naspects.   It may be noted that the first  assessments\twere
\nmade by the Sales-tax Officer primarily on the basis of\t the
\nreturns\t submitted  by\tthe assessee.\tIn  the\t proceedings
\nrelating to those assessments, the Sales-tax Officer  relied
\non  the\t books\tof account of the  assessee.   While  making
\nreassessments on the basis of the information gathered\tfrom
\nthe  bill  book seized, the Sales-tax Officer  rejected\t the
\naccounts  maintained  by  the  assessee\t as  unreliable\t and
\nassessed  the assessee on the basis of his ‘best  judgment’.
\nThe  distinction  between a ‘best judgment’  assessment\t and
\nassessment  based on the accounts submitted by\tan  assessee
\nmust  be borne in mind.\t Sometime there may be\tinnocent  or
\ntrivial mistakes in the accounts maintained by the assessee.
\nThere\tmay  be\t even  certain\tunintended  or\t unimportant
\nomissions  in  those accounts; but yet the accounts  may  be
\naccepted  as  genuine and substantially\t correct.   In\tsuch
\ncases, the assessments are made on the basis of the accounts
\nmaintained even though the assessing officer may add back to
\nthe accounts price of items that might have been omitted  to
\nbe included in the accounts.  In such a case, the assessment
\nmade  is not a ‘best-judgment’ assessment.  It is  primarily
\nmade  on  the  basis  of  the  accounts\t maintained  by\t the
\nassessee.  But when the assessing
\n1010<\/span>
\nofficer\t comes\tto the conclusion that no  reliance  can  be
\nplaced\ton  the\t accounts maintained  by  the  assessee,  he
\nProceeds  to assess the assessee on the basis of his  ‘best-
\njudgment’.  In doing so, he may take such.assistance as\t the
\nassessee’s  accounts may afford, he may also rely  on  other
\ninformation   gathered\t by   him-  as\twell   as   an\t the
\nsurrounding.circumstances of the case.\tThe assessments made
\non the basis of assessee’s accounts and those made on ‘best-
\njudgment basis are totally different types of assessments.
\nNow  coming  to the facts of this case it  is  necessary  to
\nremember that at the initial stage, the assessee denied that
\nthe  bill  book\t seized was his bill book  and\tthe  entries
\ntherein\t related to his dealings.  He asserted that  he\t had
\nnothing to do with the bill book in question and the entries
\ntherein\t do  not  relate to his dealings.  But\tat  a  later
\nstage,\the  conceded that that ‘bill book was  his  and\t the
\nentries\t therein related to his dealings.  It is now  proved
\nas  well as admitted that his dealings outside his  accounts
\nduring\ta  period  of  19 days were  of\t the  value  of\t Rs.
\n31,171.28. From this circumstance, it was open to the Sales-
\ntax  Officer  to  infer that the assessee  bad\tlarge  scale
\ndealings  outside  his accounts.  The assessee\thas  neither
\npleaded\t nor  established only justifiable  reason  for\t not
\nentering in his accounts the dealings noted in the bill book
\nseized.\t  It  is  obvious  that\t he  was  maintaining  false
\naccounts to evade payment of sales-tax.\t In such a situation
\nit  was not possible for the Sales-tax Officer to  find\t out
\nprecisely  the turnover suppressed.  He could only  make  an
\nestimate  of  the suppressed turnover on the  basis  of\t the
\nmaterial before him.  So long as the estimate made by him is
\nnot arbitrary and has nexus with facts discovered, the\tname
\ncannot\tbe  questioned.\t In the very nature  of\t things\t the
\nestimate made may be an over-estimate or an under,-estimate.
\nBut  that  is  no  ground for  interfering  with  his  ‘best
\njudgment’.  It is true that the basis adopted by the officer
\nshould\tbe relevant to the estimate made.  The\tHigh  .Court
\nwas wrong in assuming that the assessing authority must have
\nmaterial  before it to prove the exact turnover\t suppressed.
\nIf that is true there is no question of best-,judgment.\t The
\nassessee  cannot be permitted to take advantage of  his\t own
\nillegal acts.  It was his duty to place all facts truthfully
\nbefore the assessing authority.\t If he fails to do his duty,
\nhe cannot be allowed to call upon the assessing authority to
\nprove  conclusively what turnover, he had suppressed.\tThat
\nfact  must  be\twithin his personal  knowledge.\t  Hence\t the
\nburden of proving that fact is on him.\tNo circumstance\t has
\nbeen placed before the assessing authority to show that\t the
\nassessee’s dealings during 1-9-1960 to 19-9-1960 outside his
\naccounts  were due to some exceptional circumstance or\tthat
\nthey were proportionately more than his dealings outside his
\naccounts,  during  the\tremaining  periods.   The  assessing
\nauthority  could not have been in possession of any  correct
\nmeasure to find out the escaped
\n1011<\/span>
\nturnover during the periods 1-11-1959 to 31-8-1960 and 20-9-
\n1960 to 20-10-1960.  The task of the.assessing authority  in
\nfinding\t out the escaped turnover was by no means easy.\t  In
\nestimating any escaped turnover it is inevitable that  there
\nis,  some guesswork.  The assessing authority  while  making
\nthe ‘best-judgment’ assessment no doubt should arrive at its
\nconclusion  without  any bias and on rational  basis.\tThat
\nauthority  should not be vindictive or capricious.   If\t the
\nestimate  made\tby the assessing authority is  a  bona\tfide
\nestimate  and  is based on a rational basis, the  fact\tthat
\nthere  is  no  good proof in support  of  that\testimate  is
\nimmaterial.   Prima facie, the assessing- authority  is\t the
\nbest judge of the situation.  It is his ‘best-judgment’\t and
\nnot of any-one else’s.\tThe High Court could not  substitute
\nits ‘best-judgment’ for that of the assessing authority.  In
\nthe  case  of ‘best-judgment’ assessments, the\tcourts\twill
\nhave  to first see whether the accounts maintained  ‘by\t the
\nassessee were rightly rejected as unreliable.  If they\tcome
\nto the conclusion that they were rightly rejected, the\tnext
\nquestion that arises for consideration is whether the  basis
\nadopted\t in estimating the turnover has a  reasonable  nexus
\nwith the estimate made.\t If the basis adopted is held to  be
\na relevant basis even though the courts may think that it is
\nnot  the  most appropriate basis, the estimate made  by\t the
\nassessing  authority  cannot be disturbed.  In\tthe  present
\ncase, there is no dispute that the assessee’s accounts\twere
\nrightly discarded.  We do not agree with the High Court that
\nit is the duty of the assessing authority to adduce proof in
\nsupport of its estimate.  The basis adopted by the Sales-tax
\nOfficer\t was  a\t relevant  one\twhether\t it  was  the\tmost
\nappropriate or not.  Hence the High Court was not  justified
\nin interfering with the same,.\n<\/p>\n
The  jaw relating to ‘best-judgment’ assessment is the\tsame
\nboth in the case of income-tax assessment as well as in\t the
\ncase of sales-tax assessment.  The scope of  ‘best-judgment’
\nassessment   under   the   income-tax  law   came   up\t for
\nconsideration before the Judicial Committee as early as 1937
\nin   Commissioner  of  Income-tax,  Central  and   U.P.\t  v.
\nLaxminarain Badridas<\/a>. (1).  Therein Lord Russel of  Killowen
\nspeaking for the Judicial Committee observed (at p. 180) :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  Officer is to make an assessment to\t the
\n\t      best of hi,; judgment against a person who  is
\n\t      in  default as regards supplying\tinformation.
\n\t      He must not. act dishonestly, or\tvindictively
\n\t      or  capriciously\tbecause\t he  must   exercise
\n\t      judgment in the matter.  He must make what  he
\n\t      honestly believes to be a fair estimate of the
\n\t      proper  figure  of assessment,  and  for\tthis
\n\t      purpose he must, their Lordship think, be able
\n\t      to take into consideration local knowledge and
\n\t      repute in regard to the assessee’s circum-
\n\t      5.1.7.R 70.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      1012<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      stances,\tand  his own knowledge\tof  previous
\n\t      returns  by land assessments of the  assessee,
\n\t      and  all\tother matters which he\tthinks\twill
\n\t      assist  him in arriving at a fair\t and  proper
\n\t      estimate,\t and though there  must\t necessarily
\n\t      be  .guess-work  in  the matter,\tit  must  be
\n\t      honest  guess-work.  In that sense,  too,\t the
\n\t      assessment must be to some extent arbitrary.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  Raghubar Mandal Harihar Mandal v. The State of  Bihar<\/a>(1)
\n,a case arising under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1944, the law
\nrelating  to  ‘best-judgment’  assessment  was\texamined  at
\nlength by this Court.  Therein S. K. Das J. speaking for the
\nCourt observed (at p. 778) :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “No doubt it is true that when the returns and
\n\t      the   books  of  account\tare  rejected,\t the
\n\t      assessing officer must ,make an estimate,\t and
\n\t      to  that extent he must make a guess; but\t the
\n\t      estimate\tmust be related to some evidence  or
\n\t      material\tand it must be something  more\tthan
\n\t      mere  suspicion.\t To use the  words  of\tLord
\n\t      Ruessel of Killowen again, “he must make\twhat
\n\t      he honestly believes to be a fair estimate  of
\n\t      the proper figure of assessment” and for\tthis
\n\t      purpose  he must take into consideration\tsuch
\n\t      materials as the assessing officer has  before
\n\t      him,  including the  assessee’s  circumstances
\n\t      knowledge\t of previous returns and  all  other
\n\t      matters  which  the assessing  officer  thinks
\n\t      will  assist  him in arriving at\ta  fair\t and
\n\t      proper estimate.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (emphasis supplied)
\nProceeding  further the learned judge quoted  with  approval
\nthe observations of Din Mohamad J. in Ganga Ram Balmokand v.
\nCommissioner of Income-tax, Punjab(2) :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  cannot be denied that there must be\tsome
\n\t      material\tbefore\tthe  Income-tax\t Officer  on
\n\t      which  to base his estimate, but no  hard\t and
\n\t      fast  rule  can be laid down by the  Court  to
\n\t      define  what sort of material is\trequired  on
\n\t      which his estimate can be founded.”
\n\t      After quoting those observations, the  learned
\n\t      judge proceeded to observe :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      ‘,With  that observation we  generally  agree.
\n\t      If,  in this case, the Sales  Tax\t Authorities
\n\t      had  based  their estimate  on  some  material
\n\t      before  them,  no objection  could  have\tbeen
\n\t      taken.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Applying4 the rule laid down in Raghubar Mandal Harihar
\nMandal’s case (supra), to the facts of the present case\t it,
\nis seen
\n(I) 8S.T.C-770.\t\t\t\t(2) 51.T.R. 464.\n<\/p>\n
1013<\/span><\/p>\n
that  the Sales-tax Officer had material before him to\tfind
\nout,  how.  much turnover had escaped  assessment  during  a
\nperiod\tof  19\tdays.\tOn the basis  of  that\tmaterial  he
\nestimated  the escaped turnover for the entire year.   Hence
\nit  cannot be said that there was no basis for the  estimate
\nmade by the Sales-tax Officer.\tIt may be that his  estimate
\nwas  an over-estimate or an under-estimate but it cannot  be
\nsaid  that  the estimate was without any basis.\t  In  making
\nthat estimate, there was an element of guess-work which\t was
\ninevitable in the circumstances of the case.  If the  Sales-
\ntax Officer was compelled to adopt a rule of thumb which  in
\na  sense  is  an  arbitrary  rule,  assessee  was   entirely
\nresponsible for that situation.\n<\/p>\n
In  State of Kerala v. C. Velukutty<\/a>,(1) this Court  speaking
\nthrough Subba Rao J. (as he then was) observed (at p. 244 of
\nthe Report) :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  limits of the power are implicit in\t the
\n\t      expression  “best of his judgment”.   Judgment
\n\t      is  a  faculty to decide matters\twith  wisdom
\n\t      truly  and legally.  Judgment does not  depend
\n\t      upon the arbitrary caprice of a judge, but  on
\n\t      settled and invariable principles of  justice.
\n\t      Though  there is an element of guesswork in  a
\n\t      “best judgment assessment”.  It shall not be a
\n\t      wild one, but shall have a reasonable nexus to
\n\t      the  available material and the  circumstances
\n\t      of each case.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  question  before us is whether there  is  a  reasonable
\nnexus  between the basis adopted by the assessing  authority
\nand the estimate of escaped turnover made.  We have no doubt
\nthat there is such a nexus.\n<\/p>\n
On  behalf  of\tthe assessee, reliance\twas  placed  on\t the
\ndecision of this Court in Commissioner of Income-tax.,\tWest
\nBengal\t v.   Padamchand   Ramgopal<\/a>(1).\t   Therein,    while
\ninvestigating into the case of the assessee, the  Income-tax
\nOfficer\t found two insignificant mistakes in  the  assessees
\naccounts  relating  to\tthe  assessment\t year  1953-54.\t  No
\nmistakes  were\tfound  in  the\taccounts  relating  to\t the
\nassessment  years 1954-55 to 1957-58.  Merely because  there
\nwere some insignificant mistakes in the accounts  maintained
\nby the assessee for the assessment year 1953-54, the Income-
\ntax  Officer rejected the accounts of the assessee  for\t all
\nthe  concerned\tassessment  years and added  to\t the  income
\nreturned  half\tthe amount of gross receipts  shown  by\t the
\nassessee under the head “interest” for each of the years  as
\nescaped\t income.  The Tribunal upheld the addition ‘but\t the
\nHigh Court came to the conclusion that the additions made by
\nthe  Income-tax\t Officer were quite arbitrary.\t This  Court
\nagreed\twith  that  view.  We do not  think  that  the\tsaid
\ndecision lends any support to the assessee’s contention.\n<\/p>\n
(1) 60 I.T.R.239\t    (1) 76 I.T.R.719.\n<\/p>\n
1014<\/span><\/p>\n
For  the  reasons mentioned above, We are  unable  to  agree
\nwith  .the  High  Court that  the  Sales.-tax  Officer.\t had
\narbitrarily assessed the assessee.\n<\/p>\n
It was next contended that in are assessment under,s. 19(1)
\nof  the Act, Sale-tax Officer was- not competent  to-  make.
\n‘best.\tjudgment assessment’ as no such power was  conferred
\non  him under the said section.\t This contentions  had\tbeen
\nrejected  by  the;  High  Court and  the  assessee  had\t not
\nappealed  against that part of the judgment.  Be that as  it
\nmay, even though s. 19<\/a> does not in specific terms confer  on
\nthe   assessing\t authority  power  to  make   ‘best-judgment
\nassessment’    that   section\tspecifically\tsays\tthat
\nthe  .assessment made under that section is a  reassessment.
\nSection\t 18<\/a>  deals with assessment of tax.  Section  18<\/a>\t (4)
\nsays
\n“If a registered dealer-<\/p>\n
\n\tX\tX\n\t      (a) x\tx    x\t  x\n\t\t\t   (b) x   x\tx      x\n\t\t\t  (c) x\t   x\tx    x\n<\/pre>\n
\t      (d) has not maintained any account or has\t not
\n\t      regularly\t employed any method of\t accounting,
\n\t      or if the.method employed is such that in\t the
\n\t      opinion of the Commissioner assessment  cannot
\n\t      properly\tbe  made on the basis  thereof;\t the
\n\t      Commissioner  shall in the  prescribed  manner
\n\t      assess   the  dealer  to\tthe  best   of\t his
\n\t      judgment.”\n<\/p>\n
What  is  true\tof  the assessment  must  also\tbe  true  of
\nreassessment  because  reasessment is nothing  but  a  fresh
\nassessment.   When  reassessment is made under\ts.  19,\t the
\nformer\tassessment is completely reopened and in  its  place
\nfresh  assessment is made.  While reassessing a dealer,\t the
\nassessing  authority  does  not merely\tassess\thim  on\t the
\nescaped turnover but it assesses him on his total  estimated
\nturnover.   While  making reassessment under s. 19<\/a>,  if\t the
\nassessing  authority  has. no power to\tmake  best  judgment
\nassessment,  all  that\tthe  assessee  need  do\t to   escape
\nreassessment  is  to refuse to file a return  or  refuse  to
\nproduce\t his  account-books.   If the  contention  taken  on
\nbehalf of the assessee, is correct, the assessee can  escape
\nhis  liability to be reassessed by adopting  an\t obstructive
\nattitude.   It is difficult to conceive that such  could  be
\nthe position in law.\n<\/p>\n
Before making reassessment, the assessing authority has\t to,
\nunder rule 33(1) framed under the Act call upon the assessee
\nto  produce his books of account and other  documents  which
\nthe  assessing authority may require and any evidence  which
\nthe dealer may wish to produce in support of his  objection.
\nWhen  such a notice is issued to the dealer, he\t may  appear
\nbefore\tthe  assessing authority on the date  fixed  in\t the
\nnotice and prefer his objections
\n1015<\/span>
\nand  produce such evidence as he may think  necessary.\tSub-
\nrule (2) of rule 33 provides that if the assessee appears in
\nresponse  to  the notice under s. 3<\/a> 3<\/a>  (1).,  the  assessing
\nauthority  may make reassessment, if necessary, only  after,
\nconsidering  the objections raised by the dealer and  after,
\nexamining such evidence as may be produced by,, him,.  It is
\nimportant  to, note that in the notice which  the  assessing
\nauthority  is required to issued to the dealer in  form\t 16,
\nthe  extent  of the escaped turnover as\t estimated,  by\t the
\nassessing authority has to be specified.  The procedure laid
\ndown in rule 33 could not have been a mere empty  formality.
\nIf  the\t assessee’s contention is right in order  to  escape
\nreassessment all that the assessee need do is to ignore\t the
\nnotice issued under rule 33(1) and refuse to co-operate with
\nthe assessing authority in the reassessment proceedings.  We
\nare unable to accept that  is the true position in law.
\nIn our opinion the decision of the Andra Pradesh High  Court
\nin  State  of Andhra Pradesh v. Bavuri\tV.  Narasimhan,\t (1)
\nrelied on by the assessee was not correctly decided.
\nFor  the  reasons mentioned above, we allow  these  appeals,
\nvacate the answers given by the High Court to Questions Nos.
\n1  and\t3  and\tanswer those  questions\t in  favour  of\t the
\nDepartment i.e. that the estimate of taxable turnover  under
\nthe  ‘State Act<\/a> and the ‘Central Act<\/a>‘ made by the  assessing
\nauthority  for the period from November 1, 1959\t to  October
\n20,  1960  on  the basis of Rs.\t 31,171.28  as\tthe  escaped
\nturnover for a period of 19 days was legal and justified and
\nconsequently  the  penalty  of\tRs.  2,000\/imposed  on\t the
\nassessee was in accordance with law.  The assessee shall pay
\nthe  costs of the Department both in this Court and  in\t the
\nHigh Court.\n<\/p>\n
G.C.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals allowed.\n<\/p>\n
16 S.T.C.5
\n1016<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, … vs M\/S. H.M. Esufall, H. M. Abdulali, … on 18 April, 1973 Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 2266, 1973 SCR (3)1005 Author: K Hegde Bench: Hegde, K.S. PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF SALES-TAX, MADHYA PRADESH Vs. RESPONDENT: M\/S. H.M. ESUFALL, H. M. ABDULALI, SIYAGANJ, INDORE DATE OF JUDGMENT18\/04\/1973 BENCH: HEGDE, […]<\/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-262422","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Sales-Tax, ... vs M\/S. H.M. Esufall, H. M. Abdulali, ... on 18 April, 1973 - 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\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-h-m-esufall-h-m-abdulali-on-18-april-1973\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, ... vs M\/S. H.M. Esufall, H. M. Abdulali, ... on 18 April, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-h-m-esufall-h-m-abdulali-on-18-april-1973\" \/>\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=\"1973-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-07T11:17:32+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=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-h-m-esufall-h-m-abdulali-on-18-april-1973#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-h-m-esufall-h-m-abdulali-on-18-april-1973\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, … vs M\\\/S. H.M. Esufall, H. M. Abdulali, … on 18 April, 1973\",\"datePublished\":\"1973-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-07T11:17:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-h-m-esufall-h-m-abdulali-on-18-april-1973\"},\"wordCount\":4022,\"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\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-h-m-esufall-h-m-abdulali-on-18-april-1973#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-h-m-esufall-h-m-abdulali-on-18-april-1973\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-h-m-esufall-h-m-abdulali-on-18-april-1973\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, ... vs M\\\/S. H.M. Esufall, H. M. Abdulali, ... on 18 April, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1973-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-07T11:17:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-h-m-esufall-h-m-abdulali-on-18-april-1973#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-h-m-esufall-h-m-abdulali-on-18-april-1973\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-h-m-esufall-h-m-abdulali-on-18-april-1973#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, … vs M\\\/S. H.M. Esufall, H. M. Abdulali, … on 18 April, 1973\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, ... vs M\/S. H.M. Esufall, H. M. Abdulali, ... on 18 April, 1973 - 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\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-h-m-esufall-h-m-abdulali-on-18-april-1973","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, ... vs M\/S. H.M. Esufall, H. M. Abdulali, ... on 18 April, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-h-m-esufall-h-m-abdulali-on-18-april-1973","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1973-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-07T11:17:32+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-h-m-esufall-h-m-abdulali-on-18-april-1973#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-h-m-esufall-h-m-abdulali-on-18-april-1973"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, … vs M\/S. H.M. Esufall, H. M. Abdulali, … on 18 April, 1973","datePublished":"1973-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-07T11:17:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-h-m-esufall-h-m-abdulali-on-18-april-1973"},"wordCount":4022,"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\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-h-m-esufall-h-m-abdulali-on-18-april-1973#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-h-m-esufall-h-m-abdulali-on-18-april-1973","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-h-m-esufall-h-m-abdulali-on-18-april-1973","name":"Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, ... vs M\/S. H.M. Esufall, H. M. Abdulali, ... on 18 April, 1973 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1973-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-07T11:17:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-h-m-esufall-h-m-abdulali-on-18-april-1973#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-h-m-esufall-h-m-abdulali-on-18-april-1973"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-ms-h-m-esufall-h-m-abdulali-on-18-april-1973#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, … vs M\/S. H.M. Esufall, H. M. Abdulali, … on 18 April, 1973"}]},{"@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\/262422","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=262422"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262422\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=262422"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=262422"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=262422"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}