{"id":268890,"date":"2007-10-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ddy-commissioner-l-commercial-vs-associated-rice-mills-stores-on-18-october-2007"},"modified":"2018-08-24T12:26:36","modified_gmt":"2018-08-24T06:56:36","slug":"ddy-commissioner-l-commercial-vs-associated-rice-mills-stores-on-18-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ddy-commissioner-l-commercial-vs-associated-rice-mills-stores-on-18-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"Ddy.Commissioner (L) Commercial &#8230; vs Associated Rice Mills Stores on 18 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ddy.Commissioner (L) Commercial &#8230; vs Associated Rice Mills Stores on 18 October, 2007<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nTRC No. 47 of 1999()\n\n\n\n1. DDY.COMMISSIONER  (L) COMMERCIAL TAXES\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. ASSOCIATED RICE MILLS STORES\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.RAJU JOSEPH, SPL.GOVT.PLEADER(TAX)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.C.BALAGANGADHARAN\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN\n\n Dated :18\/10\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                    H.L.DATTU, C.J. &amp; K.T.SANKARAN, J.\n                     --------------------------------------------------\n                             T.R.C.No. 47 of 1999\n                        --------------------------------------------\n                   Dated this the 18th day of October, 2007.\n\n                                       O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">H.L.Dattu, C.J.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">               The only question that arises in this petition for our consideration<\/p>\n<p>and decision is the rate of tax payable in respect of the sales turnover of<\/p>\n<p>V belts and transmission belts.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">               (2). The assessment year in question is 1990-1991.<\/p>\n<p>               (3). The assessee is a registered dealer under the provisions of<\/p>\n<p>the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and <a href=\"\/doc\/1645178\/\" id=\"a_1\">Central Sales Tax Act<\/a>.              He is a dealer<\/p>\n<p>in Huller spares, bell bearings, V belts,             transmission belts etc. For the<\/p>\n<p>assessment year 1990-91 the assessee had filed its annual returns.                The<\/p>\n<p>assessing authority after rejecting the return so filed, has proceeded to pass<\/p>\n<p>best judgment assessment. In the return filed, the assessee had claimed that<\/p>\n<p>the transmission belts are cotton fabrics, and therefore, they would fall under<\/p>\n<p>Entry 7 of Third Schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax Act and in so far as<\/p>\n<p>V belts are concerned, the stand of the assessee is that though it contains<\/p>\n<p>65% of rubber, the same cannot be treated as rubber product which would fall<\/p>\n<p>under Entry 7 of the Fifth Schedule.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">               (4). The reasoning and conclusion of the assessing authority as<\/p>\n<p>well as the first appellate authority is that the goods dealt by the assessee are<\/p>\n<p>rubber products and they would fall under Entry 7 of Fifth schedule to the<\/p>\n<p>TRC No.47 of 1999<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                             -2-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Kerala General Sales Tax Act, and accordingly, had passed an order treating the<\/p>\n<p>sales turnover of the assessee relating to these items as taxable at second point<\/p>\n<p>sale in the hands of the assessee.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">               (5). The assessee, being aggrieved by the order so passed by the<\/p>\n<p>assessing authority as well as the first appellate authority had carried the matter<\/p>\n<p>in appeal before the Tribunal in T.A.No.40 of 1993. The Tribunal by its order<\/p>\n<p>dated 15th October, 1998 has allowed the assessee&#8217;s appeal and in that has<\/p>\n<p>observed as under:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>            &#8221; I have heard both sides.       The only question that<\/p>\n<p>            emerges for consideration in this second appeal is<\/p>\n<p>            whether V belt and transmission beltings are rubber<\/p>\n<p>            products or not. The assessing authority as well as the<\/p>\n<p>            first appellate authority held the goods to be rubber<\/p>\n<p>            products.     According to the appellant transmission<\/p>\n<p>            beltings are cotton fabrics coming under entry 7 of the 3rd<\/p>\n<p>            Schedule to the KGST Act as major constituant of the<\/p>\n<p>            same is Cotton which constitute 65%.              Similarly<\/p>\n<p>            according to the appellant though V Belt contain 65%<\/p>\n<p>            Rubber the same cannot be treated as rubber products<\/p>\n<p>            which fall under entry 7 of the 5th Schedule to the KGST<\/p>\n<p>            Act. It is seen that the issue has been decided by this<\/p>\n<p>            Tribunal in Appeal No.657\/91 dt.15th February, 1997 in<\/p>\n<p>            the case of the same appellant.      As per the order of<\/p>\n<p>            Tribunal    in   T.A.No.657\/91     dated    15-2-97    the<\/p>\n<p>            transmission beltings was found to be cotton fabrics<\/p>\n<p>            falling under entry 7 of the 3rd Schedule and V belt was<\/p>\n<p>TRC No.47 of 1999<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                            -3-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>            found to be a rubber product falling under entry 7 of the<\/p>\n<p>            5th Schedule. In the light of the earlier decision of the<\/p>\n<p>            Tribunal in the case of the same appellant mentioned<\/p>\n<p>            above, I also hold that transmission beltings fall under<\/p>\n<p>            entry 7 of 3rd Schedule and V belt falls under entry 7 of<\/p>\n<p>            the 5th Schedule. The second appeal is therefore partly<\/p>\n<p>            allowed.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_6\">\n<p id=\"p_7\">               (6). Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Tribunal, the State<\/p>\n<p>is before us, in this tax revision case.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">               (7). The questions of law raised in this revision petition for our<\/p>\n<p>consideration and decision reads as follows:<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>            (i).    Is the Tribunal correct in law in holding that<\/p>\n<p>            transmission belts are &#8220;cotton fabrics&#8221; falling under entry<\/p>\n<p>            7 of the 3rd Schedule to the KGST Act?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_2\"><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_3\"><p>            (ii).   Is not on a proper interpretation V Belts and<\/p>\n<p>            transmission belts would fall only under entry 7 (rubber<\/p>\n<p>            products) under the 5th Schedule to the KGST Act?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_9\">\n<p id=\"p_10\">               (8).    Before answering the questions of law raised by the<\/p>\n<p>Revenue, we intend to note that the Tribunal while disposing of TA.No.40 of<\/p>\n<p>1993 for the assessment year 1990-91 has relied upon the orders passed by the<\/p>\n<p>Tribunal in TA.No.657 of 1991 dated 15th February, 1997 for the assessment<\/p>\n<p>year 1989-90.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">TRC No.47 of 1999<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_2\">                                             -4-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>               (9). The State has accepted the orders passed by the Tribunal in<\/p>\n<p>the sense, that the State has not preferred any appeal against the orders passed<\/p>\n<p>by the Tribunal in T.A.No.657 of 1991 dated 15th February, 1997.<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">               (10). At this stage, it would be relevant to notice the observations<\/p>\n<p>made by the Apex Court in the case of            Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs.<\/p>\n<p>Commissioner of Income Tax [ (2004) 266 ITR 99]. In the said decision the<\/p>\n<p>Apex Court has observed as under:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_4\"><p>            &#8220;In view of the judgments of this court in <a href=\"\/doc\/243501\/\" id=\"a_1\">Union of India<\/p>\n<p>            v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal<\/a> (2001) 249 ITR 219; CIT v.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">            Narendra Doshi {2002} 254 ITR 606 and               <a href=\"\/doc\/1962308\/\" id=\"a_2\">CIT v.\n\n            Shivsagar Estate<\/a> {2002} 257 ITR 59,          the principle\n\n<\/pre>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_5\"><p>            established is that if the Revenue has not challenged<\/p>\n<p>            the correctness of the law laid down by the High Court<\/p>\n<p>            and has accepted it in the case of one assessee, then it<\/p>\n<p>            is not open to the Revenue to challenge its correctness<\/p>\n<p>            in the case of other assessees, without just cause.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_14\">\n<p id=\"p_15\">              (11). The concept of &#8216;just cause&#8217; has been explained by the Apex<\/p>\n<p>Court in a subsequent decision.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">              (12).   The assessee in TA.No.657 of 1991 is the very same<\/p>\n<p>assessee in T.A.No.40 of 1993. The assessment year in T.A.No.657 of 1991 is<\/p>\n<p>1989-90. The Tribunal, after detail consideration of the issues involved in that<\/p>\n<p>case, had come to the conclusion that the transmission belts are cotton fabrics<\/p>\n<p>and would fall under Entry 7 of Third schedule to the Kerala General Sales Tax<\/p>\n<p>TRC No.47 of 1999<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_3\">                                             -5-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Act.   That decision of the Tribunal is accepted by the Revenue. In the<\/p>\n<p>subsequent order, the Tribunal, following its earlier decision had allowed the<\/p>\n<p>assessee&#8217;s appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">                (13). In the revision petition filed, the Revenue has not stated<\/p>\n<p>what is the &#8216;just cause&#8217; which prompted them to prefer a revision petition against<\/p>\n<p>an order passed by the Tribunal against the same assessee for the subsequent<\/p>\n<p>year. In the absence of such an explanation, we cannot entertain this revision<\/p>\n<p>petition filed for the sole reason that the Revenue has accepted the decision<\/p>\n<p>rendered by the Tribunal in the assessee&#8217;s own case for the previous<\/p>\n<p>assessment year. In that view of the matter, without going into the merits or<\/p>\n<p>demerits of the case and following the principles laid down by the Apex Court in<\/p>\n<p>the case of Berger Paints India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax<\/p>\n<p>[(2004) 266 ITR 99], this revision petition requires to be rejected and it is<\/p>\n<p>rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">                Ordered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\">\n<p id=\"p_20\">                                                           (H.L.DATTU)<br \/>\n                                                          CHIEF JUSTICE<\/p>\n<p>                                                         (K.T.SANKARAN)<br \/>\n                                                              JUDGE<\/p>\n<p>MS<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Ddy.Commissioner (L) Commercial &#8230; vs Associated Rice Mills Stores on 18 October, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM TRC No. 47 of 1999() 1. DDY.COMMISSIONER (L) COMMERCIAL TAXES &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. ASSOCIATED RICE MILLS STORES &#8230; Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.RAJU JOSEPH, SPL.GOVT.PLEADER(TAX) For Respondent :SRI.K.C.BALAGANGADHARAN The Hon&#8217;ble 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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-268890","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ddy.Commissioner (L) Commercial ... vs Associated Rice Mills Stores on 18 October, 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\/ddy-commissioner-l-commercial-vs-associated-rice-mills-stores-on-18-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ddy.Commissioner (L) Commercial ... vs Associated Rice Mills Stores on 18 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ddy-commissioner-l-commercial-vs-associated-rice-mills-stores-on-18-october-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=\"2007-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-24T06:56:36+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ddy-commissioner-l-commercial-vs-associated-rice-mills-stores-on-18-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ddy-commissioner-l-commercial-vs-associated-rice-mills-stores-on-18-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ddy.Commissioner (L) Commercial &#8230; vs Associated Rice Mills Stores on 18 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-24T06:56:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ddy-commissioner-l-commercial-vs-associated-rice-mills-stores-on-18-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1104,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ddy-commissioner-l-commercial-vs-associated-rice-mills-stores-on-18-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ddy-commissioner-l-commercial-vs-associated-rice-mills-stores-on-18-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ddy-commissioner-l-commercial-vs-associated-rice-mills-stores-on-18-october-2007\",\"name\":\"Ddy.Commissioner (L) Commercial ... vs Associated Rice Mills Stores on 18 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-24T06:56:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ddy-commissioner-l-commercial-vs-associated-rice-mills-stores-on-18-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ddy-commissioner-l-commercial-vs-associated-rice-mills-stores-on-18-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ddy-commissioner-l-commercial-vs-associated-rice-mills-stores-on-18-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ddy.Commissioner (L) Commercial &#8230; vs Associated Rice Mills Stores on 18 October, 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":"Ddy.Commissioner (L) Commercial ... vs Associated Rice Mills Stores on 18 October, 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\/ddy-commissioner-l-commercial-vs-associated-rice-mills-stores-on-18-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ddy.Commissioner (L) Commercial ... vs Associated Rice Mills Stores on 18 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ddy-commissioner-l-commercial-vs-associated-rice-mills-stores-on-18-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-24T06:56:36+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ddy-commissioner-l-commercial-vs-associated-rice-mills-stores-on-18-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ddy-commissioner-l-commercial-vs-associated-rice-mills-stores-on-18-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ddy.Commissioner (L) Commercial &#8230; vs Associated Rice Mills Stores on 18 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-24T06:56:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ddy-commissioner-l-commercial-vs-associated-rice-mills-stores-on-18-october-2007"},"wordCount":1104,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ddy-commissioner-l-commercial-vs-associated-rice-mills-stores-on-18-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ddy-commissioner-l-commercial-vs-associated-rice-mills-stores-on-18-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ddy-commissioner-l-commercial-vs-associated-rice-mills-stores-on-18-october-2007","name":"Ddy.Commissioner (L) Commercial ... vs Associated Rice Mills Stores on 18 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-24T06:56:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ddy-commissioner-l-commercial-vs-associated-rice-mills-stores-on-18-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ddy-commissioner-l-commercial-vs-associated-rice-mills-stores-on-18-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ddy-commissioner-l-commercial-vs-associated-rice-mills-stores-on-18-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ddy.Commissioner (L) Commercial &#8230; vs Associated Rice Mills Stores on 18 October, 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\/268890","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=268890"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268890\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268890"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268890"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268890"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}