{"id":29602,"date":"2010-11-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jindal-aluminium-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010"},"modified":"2018-09-29T18:54:40","modified_gmt":"2018-09-29T13:24:40","slug":"ms-jindal-aluminium-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jindal-aluminium-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Jindal Aluminium Ltd., vs State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S. Jindal Aluminium Ltd., vs State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri<\/div>\n
to\n\nC.-U V \n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 19\"' DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010:\u00a7f;,l_i~~.__\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHQK,.B_. HI?<lC'HI.C\u00a7_fE.Fiir:  it  it\n\nWRIT PETITION No.3589S\/12.4010'BIT-FEB)' E  \nAND WRIT PETITION Nos.3S978~3'S988\/2Q1E_Q= =\n\nBETWEEN:\n\nM\/S. Jindal Aluminium Ltd,   \n\nJindal Nagar, Tumkur Road,----.._  ;\n\nBangalore ~ 560 073.  '\nRepresented by its _    p =..\nGeneral Manager--C.0rpo--r_ate\u00a7:Affairs,  ' "\nMr.P. Ashok Rap, '_    ' "\nAged about 43 years,    '_  \n\nS\/o Sri P. Rameslfi Ra.:')_. '   ..    Petitioner\n\n(By Sri  TlIiArujI.TIa.\u00a7V\u00a7:3n3s(tI and.'V_Sri_ (.E."l\u00a7abinathan, Advocates)\nAND: A E E A it\n\n1. Stateof Karn.ataka, \n Represented b'y-Principal Secretary to Government,\n FiV'nanee= Department}\n ' _Ga.vernIne\u00abn't"'o_f Karnataka,\n V_idhia.rI'a\u00ab._(S'oIIdVhia, Bangalore -- 560 001.\n\n of Commercial Taxes Karnataka,\nV Vanijy'aaTherige Karyalaya, Gandhinagar,\n Bangal__ore - 560 009.\n\n _ 'Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit 63),\nDV"O~6, Bangalore Division,\n\nSrinivasa Complex,\n 15' Main Road, Sheshadripuram,\n\nBangalore --- 560 020.  Respondents<\/pre>\n
(By Sri KM. Shivayogiswamy, HCGP)<\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
\nthe Constitution of India praying to quash the common
\nreassessment orders passed by Deputy Commissioner of
\nCommercial Taxes (Audit 63), Bangalore, third respondent
\nherein, under Section 39(2) of KVAT Act, 2003 for the tax period
\nApril 2005 to March 2006 as the orders passed without authority
\nof law and without jurisdiction under Section 39(2) of_gth’e_<is.aid
\nAct and consequently quash also the common ord..\u20ac_Fs.Vp*as.se\u00abd<\/p>\n
under Section 72(2) and Section 36 of the said Act-3vfor"'thjfe<\/p>\n
tax periods levying penalty and interest vicle Anx–C"a.nd\u00bbetc;'<\/p>\n
These writ petitions coming on for'Fr'e|iminaryltfieari:ngCth'i's
\nday, the Court made the following:    .\n<\/p>\n
0 R DE-R_._
\nSri K.M.Shivayogiswamy,  _Vlear’ned:V:l”:Hig:;Vf!’i Court
\nGovernment Pleader is   notice for the<\/p>\n
respondents.\n<\/p>\n
2. The  the challenge to the common
\nreassessment oi”-dVers,VVdated3()~I1O.2O10 (Annexure–C).<\/p>\n
 Sari  Thitrurnalesh, the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petit_.io’ner’ in the instant case no further evidence<\/p>\n
S 2*-ii’\u00bbhas Cornet to Vtheili-notice of the prescribed authority; therefore the<\/p>\n
–\u00ab.il’.j’;-que-stion ofpassing any further reassessment order under<\/p>\n
 settiens”9(2) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2oo3 (‘VAT<\/p>\n
.  for short) would not arise. He brings to my notice the<\/p>\n
‘v””~p4r’ovisions contained in Section 39(2) of the VAT Act, The said<\/p>\n
 provisions of the VAT Act are extracted hereinbelow:<\/p>\n
3<\/span>
\n“39. Re-assessment of tax<\/p>\n
(1 ) xxxxxx<\/p>\n
(2) Where after making a re–assessment under this
\nSection, any further evidence comes to the notice.__’ofV”’-””i ‘
\nthe prescribed authority, it may make any further  <\/p>\n
assessments in addition to such earlier re-assessment.”‘C: \u00ab<\/p>\n
4. Nextly, Sri Thirumaiesh brings to mynotice_the-ci’rc:u.i_a’i=;_i’<\/p>\n
dated 26.6.2006 (Annexurep) issirie’d._Vby”the’ CVOnii’Ifn\u00a7AS\u00a7S:\u00a7._QnHVei3 of <\/p>\n
Commercial Taxes. He submits that thne-i:m,o_ugned\u00ab.ordersi runs in<\/p>\n
contrast to the directions contazi?ned’A._in;pahra._’9i.and 14 of the said<\/p>\n
circular. The respondent i\\Io~.i3._jou’g–ht__r’iotbtoghave imposed<\/p>\n
interest and   maiesh.\n<\/p>\n
5.  the impugned orders are
\nwithout the_autho-r.,ity~  that the same are barred by
\nlirjnitation..’:L_:l’*ie3\u00bb___suomits\u00b0tha.t.\u00ab\u00abunder Section 40(1)(a) of the VAT<\/p>\n
Act\ufb01the’asse’s,srn:e’nt’~or reassessment order cannot be passed<\/p>\n
.1′<\/p>\n
.’u7–..after fi\\}e\u00bb’y*ears i~i6%r\ufb01 the end of the prescribed tax period and<\/p>\n
_:%’_i&th_re’e,_\u00bbyears after the evidence of facts comes to the knowledge<\/p>\n
‘[_ofrxeahs’sessirig authority. in the instant case, the tax period<\/p>\n
 ‘V_’in___qo’estion was for April 2005 to March 2006.<\/p>\n
\u00a7\u00a7\ufb01<\/p>\n
4<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
6. Sri Thirumalesh further submits that the passing of the<\/p>\n
further reassessment order does not presuppose the passing of<\/p>\n
the reassessment order in every situation.<\/p>\n
‘7. Sri K.M.Shivayogiswamy, the learned <\/p>\n
Government Pleader appearing for the respo–n.d’en_4ts”.sLi’bn1itsthat, <\/p>\n
the impugned orders are passed only under<\/p>\n
VAT Act. He emphatically submitsVth:a’i:..Vthe Aihrnpugnie-d o._rd’e~rs”jare ” i<\/p>\n
only the reassessment orders and—~~–not. ifurtheri”reassessment<\/p>\n
orders. Only the provision of_.’lavv._i’s?wrorzglyr\u00bbmentioned, so<\/p>\n
submits Sri Shivayogis.v}ia.my.:_”\n<\/p>\n
8.   ‘issuance of the notice in
\nreassessment proceeydiirigs\u00e9’ the period of limitation. As
\nthese pet,it,\u00a7i:pns. invol’vi’e..V:pure: questions of facts, these petitions<\/p>\n
canno.t:be_Ver}tertain~ed. According to the Government Pleader,<\/p>\n
 the pet.\u00a7.ti’t\u00a7.ne\u00a7’i5r}gme;d’y is to file an appeal invoking Section 62 of<\/p>\n
V7?I_thVe.VVAT Act.”—V:&iI\\iil1″ether the petitioner should have been given<\/p>\n
4:  ‘rebateior special rebate can always be gone into by the<\/p>\n
 Aothority.\n<\/p>\n
 In the course of his rejoinder, Sri Thirumalesh submits<\/p>\n
that the order which is bad in the beginning cannot be made<\/p>\n
good by offering explanation or by fiiing the affidavits. To advance<\/p>\n
this contention, he has reiied on the Hon’bie Supreme..iCo:u~rt’s<\/p>\n
judgment in the case of MOHINDER SINGH <\/p>\n
ELECTION COMMISSIONER, reported in_AI_R 19788ai1\u00ab.~_ ”  <\/p>\n
10. This Court finds considerabie force:i’n_ the <\/p>\n
the Government Pleader that the””‘siAIII’Dugned._Votd:\u00e9rsV”:,:4aVr\u00e9 \u00a3on1Y’VV<\/p>\n
reassessment orders and not ordefs for one
\nsimpie reason. The further  be passed
\nonly after the passii1g’\u00abi9f_-.the=A__ If there is no
\nreassessment    Wpassing the further
\nreassessmentgfofrdfyeri\ufb02otifan se “art.<\/p>\n
11. As  byvthe Court in the case of B.S.E.\n<\/p>\n
ByRoKER.’.:\u00a7;\u00a5”I=DRuM,fDoMr\u00a7.Ay AND OTHERS v. secunrrnas<\/p>\n
A’N_l_VJ’EXCH\u00a7ArtG\ufb01VA”BVOARD or INDIA AND OTHERS reported in<\/p>\n
 (20\u00a351_)’3__SCC’*_d\u00a2B2v;r~*mentioning the wrong provision of law wouid<\/p>\n
 no’: vitiate the ‘order as such.\n<\/p>\n
A   It is profitabie to refer to the latest Supreme Court’s<\/p>\n
V’ V–V:y”rj.tjVd”gnayent in the case of UNIIED BANK or INDIA v.<\/p>\n
V””‘r,_sATYAwATI TONDON AND omens reported in (2010) 8<\/p>\n
 SCC 110, wherein the Apex Court has expressed the considered<\/p>\n
egg<\/p>\n
6<\/span>
\nview that the statutory remedies must be exhausted before<\/p>\n
resorting to the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of
\nIndia. The Apex Court has emphasized the need for<\/p>\n
circumspection, caution and care by the High Courts toVV_ie.nsu_re<\/p>\n
that the statutory schemes are not defeated by  <\/p>\n
jurisdiction. The relevant paragraph of the s*a”i’t;.–  it<\/p>\n
extracted hereinbeiow:\n<\/p>\n
“43. Unfortunately, the High___VCour\u00a3?,_ overlooi\u20ac’e.g’~..tbVe
\nsettled law that the High  will ‘brains;-iiy”*;:not
\nentertain a petition V-‘the
\nConstitution if an effeciivg.rernedizllisgalifailabie to the<\/p>\n
aggrieved personand that.:ti7.is  ai\ufb01pliesjywith greater<\/p>\n
rigour,’ in matters ‘”iinv’oiv:’.ng recovery of taxes, cess,
\nfees, dither types\u00ab.”o.f_.money and the dues of<\/p>\n
Banks and a other }”inancia.i institutions… . . ”\n<\/p>\n
13._–,In the caseof’ THANSINGH NATHMAD v.<\/p>\n
SV’ueeRI”N’ra.Noetyt ol=””T1ixEs, DHURBI 81 omens reported<\/p>\n
in  the Supreme Court has observed that<\/p>\n
v”~’the i~\u00a3igli1..44Couyrthw:ou.!d not act as the Court of appeal against the<\/p>\n
‘<..\/..:':vd'9\u20ac'j3iOn of"'a__C33ourt or Tribunal to correct the errors of facts and<\/p>\n
4:'-'.V.x<:i'oesV'cAAnotjlby assuming the jurisdiction under Articie 226 of the<\/p>\n
'V:t.VdCo.nsti_fution trench upon an alternative remedy provided by<\/p>\n
 statute for obtaining the relief. tinder Articie 226, the High Court<\/p>\n
\ufb02gg;\n<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
does not generally enter upon a determination of questions,
\nwhich demand an elaborate examination of evidence. In the
\ncase of TITAGHUR PAPER MILLS CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER v.<\/p>\n
STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS<\/a> reported in (1983)’e’.:.’\u00ab:!”‘SCC<\/p>\n
433, the Apex Court has held that the a|terna_ti’\\’\/el..’g’~,r;\u00a7fi\u20ac’e3dy*.A<\/p>\n
provided by the statute is not to be bypasse_d,–…Aifvv.th:e:::matteifll”<\/p>\n
involves the revenue.\n<\/p>\n
:14. Considering the law laid .down”l)y’*the <\/p>\n
not finding any extraordinary circun\ufb01stances. entertaining
\nthese writ petitions, I reject,_.then.iVA. ,N’.e’ed\u00a7es’s.%to observe that all<\/p>\n
the conten,jtio%nls”are_,  bhe\ufb02ulrged before the appellate
\nforum. Thez’Gov-ernrnent’sll’s’u,,b’inlissi0n, that the impugned orders<\/p>\n
are to be treated’ as the o’neVs””.passed under Section 39(1) of the<\/p>\n
:.fvA’\u00a7’.,Act.,. its ‘piaced on record.\n<\/p>\n
 Vpe\ufb01tions are accordingly rejected. No order as<\/p>\n
‘”‘”‘to costs.\n<\/p>\n
ea\/\u00bb;\n<\/p>\n
FUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M\/S. Jindal Aluminium Ltd., vs State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2010 Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri to C.-U V IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 19″‘ DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010:\u00a7f;,l_i~~.__ BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHQK,.B_. HI?<lC'HI.C\u00a7_fE.Fiir: it it WRIT PETITION No.3589S\/12.4010'BIT-FEB)' E AND WRIT PETITION Nos.3S978~3'S988\/2Q1E_Q= = […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29602","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Jindal Aluminium Ltd., vs State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2010 - 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\/ms-jindal-aluminium-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Jindal Aluminium Ltd., vs State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jindal-aluminium-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-29T13:24:40+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jindal-aluminium-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jindal-aluminium-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Jindal Aluminium Ltd., vs State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-29T13:24:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jindal-aluminium-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1225,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jindal-aluminium-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jindal-aluminium-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jindal-aluminium-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Jindal Aluminium Ltd., vs State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-29T13:24:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jindal-aluminium-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jindal-aluminium-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-jindal-aluminium-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Jindal Aluminium Ltd., vs State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S. Jindal Aluminium Ltd., vs State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2010 - 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\/ms-jindal-aluminium-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Jindal Aluminium Ltd., vs State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jindal-aluminium-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-29T13:24:40+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jindal-aluminium-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jindal-aluminium-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Jindal Aluminium Ltd., vs State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-29T13:24:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jindal-aluminium-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010"},"wordCount":1225,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jindal-aluminium-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jindal-aluminium-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jindal-aluminium-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010","name":"M\/S. Jindal Aluminium Ltd., vs State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-29T13:24:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jindal-aluminium-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jindal-aluminium-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-jindal-aluminium-ltd-vs-state-of-karnataka-on-19-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Jindal Aluminium Ltd., vs State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2010"}]},{"@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\/29602","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=29602"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29602\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29602"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29602"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29602"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}