{"id":32567,"date":"2005-08-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-08-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vadilal-chemicals-ltd-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-2-august-2005"},"modified":"2018-08-30T17:51:53","modified_gmt":"2018-08-30T12:21:53","slug":"ms-vadilal-chemicals-ltd-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-2-august-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vadilal-chemicals-ltd-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-2-august-2005","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Vadilal Chemicals Ltd vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 2 August, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S. Vadilal Chemicals Ltd vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 2 August, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: R Pal<\/div>\n
Bench: Ruma Pal, Tarun Chatterjee<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1905 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nM\/s. Vadilal Chemicals Ltd.\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nThe State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 02\/08\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nRuma Pal & Tarun Chatterjee\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
RUMA PAL, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe issue in this appeal is whether the appellant is
\nentitled to exemption from payment of sales tax under the
\nAndhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act 1957 as notified by
\nG.O.M.S. No.117 dated 17th March,1993 (referred to in brief as
\nthe ‘1993 G.O.’).\n<\/p>\n
\tThe 1993 G.O. was issued by the Government of Andhra
\nPradesh, Industries and Commerce Department to effectuate
\nthe liberalized State incentive scheme for setting up new
\nindustries as introduced by the Government in 1989.  The
\npackage of incentives already granted by the State Government
\nwas reviewed whereafter the State Government decided to
\nintroduce certain modifications in order to accelerate industrial
\ndevelopment in the State. The incentives were granted on the
\nbasis of Districts according to their grouping under areas I, II
\nand III.  We are concerned with District Medak, falling within
\narea II.\n<\/p>\n
        Apart from an investment subsidy, rebate on electricity
\ncharges and a deferment\/tax holiday on sales tax for specified
\nperiods on products manufactured in the new industrial units
\nwere granted in Clauses 5(c) and 5(b) respectively of the 1993
\nG.O.  Medium and large scale industries were given sales tax
\ndeferment, whereas tiny and small scale industries were given
\na sales tax (holiday) exemption.  The appellant falls within the
\nlatter category.  In terms of the 1993 G.O. units like the
\nappellant’s were given a 5 years sales tax holiday subject to a
\nceiling of hundred percent of fixed capital costs or Rs. 35 lakhs
\nwhichever was less during the entire holiday period.
\nThe procedure prescribed for availing of the benefits of
\n1993 G.O. envisaged the setting up of State Level and District
\nLevel Committees.  The District Level Committees included
\nwithin its members, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial
\nTaxes.  Clauses 10 and 11 of the 1993 G.O. read as follows:-
\n“10. \tThe above Committee shall
\nscrutinize and sanction the claims
\nof the units of the concerned
\nDistrict involving eligible capital
\ninvestment of Rs. 7.5 lakhs and
\nbelow:\n<\/p>\n
11.\tThe decisions of the State Level
\nCommittee shall be final in
\nscrutinizing\/ deciding the eligible
\ninvestment and sanctioning the
\nincentives condoning the delays
\nin filing of applications for
\nregistration and claims for eligible
\nindustries.”\n<\/p>\n
\tClause 16 records that the 1993 G.O. which was issued
\nin the name of the Governor of the State was with the
\nconcurrence of the Finance and Planning (Financial Wing)
\nDepartment.  Annexure-I to the 1993 G.O. provides for a list of
\nineligible industries. We will have the occasion to refer to this in
\ngreater detail at a subsequent stage.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn 1994 the appellant set up a small scale industrial unit in
\nMedak in the State of Andhra Pradesh and invested a sum of
\nRs. 93.99 lakhs for production of Liquor Ammonia and for
\nrefilling of Anhydrous Ammonia.  On 6th June, 1994 the
\nappellant commenced commercial production. Its application to
\nthe Industries Department for an eligibility certificate mentioned
\nthe nature of the activities carried on by the unit and also gave
\ndetails of the investments made. The application was returned
\nby the Industries Department on 18th May, 1995, because the
\nCommissioner (Industries) was of the  opinion that “refilling”
\nactivities were not eligible for incentives under the scheme.
\nHowever, the matter was re-examined  at the instance of the
\nappellant. Since instructions had already been issued by the
\nDepartment to the effect that refilling of LPG Gas was
\nconsidered eligible for incentives, filling of anhydrous ammonia
\ninto cylinders was also held to be entitled to the grant of the
\nsame benefit.\n<\/p>\n
\tAccordingly, on 7th of August, 1996 the appellant’s unit
\nwas inspected by the Industries Department for verification of
\nthe appellant’s application. A recommendation was made by
\nthe Industries Department  for grant of the benefit, however
\nlimited to 50% of 15% investment subsidy and sales tax
\nexemption of Rs.35 lakhs under the Scheme.  A temporary
\neligibility certificate was then issued to the appellant on 22nd
\nAugust, 1995 by the District Industries  Centre. This was made
\nconditional on the SSI unit not collecting Sales Tax from its
\nconsumers during the period of exemption. If it did, it would be
\nliable to remit the sales tax collected to Government.
\n\tUnder cover of a letter from the  Commissioner of
\nIndustries dated 10th August 1996, a final eligibility certificate
\nwas granted to the appellant certifying the eligibility of the
\nappellant for sales tax exemption.  It may be mentioned here
\nthat the final eligibility certificate was issued with the sanction
\naccorded by the State Level Committee\/District Level
\nCommittee.  A copy of the covering letter was forwarded to the
\nCommissioner of Commercial Taxes, the concerned
\nCommercial Tax Officer and  the Deputy Commissioner
\nCommercial Taxes, Hyderabad.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in his turn wrote
\nto the Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes Hyderabad,
\nthe respondent No.4 before us, (referred to in brief as DCCT)
\nrequesting him to permit Sales Tax exemption by the appellant
\nin accordance with the 1993 G.O. saying that the eligibility
\ncertificate would be operative from 6th June, 1994 for a period of
\nfive years for an amount of Rs. 35 lakhs. The appellant was
\nthereafter granted exemption from payment of sales tax  on the
\nproducts sold from its unit upto a limit of Rs. 35 lakhs for five
\nyears from 1994 to 1999.\n<\/p>\n
\tBetween the period from 30th  September, 2002 to  3rd
\nOctober, 2002 about four years after the period of exemption
\nexpired, 9 pre-revision show cause notices under Section 9(2)
\nof the Central Sales Tax Act.1956 read with Section 20(2) of
\nthe Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act,1957 were issued
\nby the DCCT to the  appellant. It was said in the notices that
\nupon verification it was noticed that the Assessing Authority had
\nallowed irregular sales tax exemption on the first sales of
\nanhydrous liquefied ammonia amounting to Rs. 33,98,287.00
\nand adjusted the tax against the tax exemption granted under
\nthe Tax Holiday Incentive Scheme. The DCCT noticed that the
\ncommodity that was purchased and sold were one and the
\nsame and that there was no new commodity that had emerged
\nand that the activity of manufacture as it was understood in
\ncommon parlance had not taken place. According to the DCCT,
\n“manufacture” envisaged a commercially distinct and different
\ncommodity or a finished product with a separate identity from its
\nraw material. It was said that:-\n<\/p>\n
“The activity of bottling\/packing of cases
\ninto a unit containers from bulk
\nquantities was not recognized as
\nmanufacture even under Central Excise
\nAct.  It was also ascertained from the
\nconcerned Central Excise Authorities
\nthat the said units were not registered
\nunder Central Excise Act and not paying
\nCentral Excise Duty on the gases
\ncleared in cylinders to the consumers.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn view of the foregoing
\nconclusions, the granting of
\ndeferment\/exemption of sales tax to the
\nsaid units is incorrect and the same is to
\nbe withdrawn.”\n<\/p>\n
The nine show cause notices are materially identical
\nexcept that each related to different assessment years during
\nthe period of the sales tax holiday.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant replied to the show cause notices in which
\nthe jurisdiction of the DCCT to issue the notices was
\nquestioned. It was clarified that  the appellant was liable to duty
\nunder the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 and that the appellant
\nhad been paying 16% Excise Duty on both Anhydrous
\nAmmonia and Liquor Ammonia manufactured by it in
\naccordance with the procedure prescribed under that Act. The
\ndetails of the processes undertaken in producing the products
\nwere also given.  It was also drawn to the attention of the DCCT
\nthat the authority to determine the eligibility under the G.O. Ms.
\nwas not the Commercial Taxes Department, but the
\nDepartment of Industries & Commerce.\n<\/p>\n
\tSubsequently, the appellant filed a writ petition in the
\nAndhra Pradesh High Court for a declaration that the appellant
\nwas entitled to the benefits notified by the 1993 G.O. and that
\nthe pre-revision show cause notices issued by the DCCT for the
\nyears 1995-1996 up to the 1999-2000, were illegal, void and
\nunenforceable.\n<\/p>\n
During the pendency of the writ proceedings on 21st
\nJanuary, 2003 the DCCT passed an order confirming the
\ndemand proposed to be raised in the show cause notices. The
\nDCCT held that process of refilling anhydrous ammonia into
\ncylinders did not amount to a manufacturing activity.  He held
\nthat the State Government had issued a Memo dated 8.2.2000
\ndeclaring that LPG bottling units were not eligible for any Sales
\nTax incentive as no manufacturing activity was involved.
\nAccordingly the DCCT issued demand notices for recovery of
\nsales tax for the period between 1995-96 to 1999-2000.
\nThe High Court dismissed the writ petition on the basis of
\nan earlier Division Bench pronouncement in SHV  Energy
\nSouth East Limited and Anr. Vs. State Investment
\nPromotion Board, Hyderabad and Anr.  Being aggrieved by
\nthe dismissal of the writ petition the appellant filed a special
\nleave petition challenging the decision of the High Court before
\nthis Court under Article 136.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing on
\nbehalf of the appellant    submitted  that the decision relied
\nupon by the High Court was distinguishable. Apart from
\nreiterating the appellant’s stand as taken in the reply to the
\nimpugned show cause notices it was also submitted that in this
\nparticular case the appellant had been granted the benefit
\nunder the 1993 G.O. after an exhaustive consideration of the
\nappellants’ case. It was stated that the appellant had made a
\nfull disclosure of the process of manufacture undertaken by the
\nappellant.  It was also submitted that the word “manufacture” as
\nused in the 1993 G.O. must be understood in the context of the
\nincentive scheme and the objects sought to be fulfilled thereby.
\nThe emphasis was on Industrial development and not on the
\nmanufacture.  It was submitted that the words used in the 1993
\nG.O. must be given a liberal construction since it is part of a
\npacket of incentives. As far as sales tax law was concerned, the
\nState Act neither defined manufacture nor was it concerned
\nwith whether goods sold were manufactured or not.  According
\nto the learned counsel there was intrinsic evidence  in the 1993
\nG.O. to show that the word “manufacture” was used in a wide
\nsense and that this was apparent from Annexure I to the 1993
\nG.O. which contained a list of ineligible  industries.  These
\nincluded widely disparate industries such as powder of chilly,
\nturmeric, masala  spices, kari, sambhar etc.; manure mixing
\nindustries and hotels except (a)  Motels (b) hotels set up in
\nState Government approved tourist centers of Districts. Finally
\nand in the  alternative it was contended that if the issue was
\ndecided against the appellant, having regard to the
\ncircumstances of the case, the respondent State should not be
\npermitted to recover the amount as the appellant had not
\ncollected any sales tax from its consumers, not only because of
\nthe prohibition under the  State Sales Tax Act, but also because
\nof the conditions under which the eligibility certificates both
\ntemporary and final had been issued.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on
\nbehalf of the respondents has said that manufacture for the
\npurpose of the sales tax does not include repackaging,
\nrebottling etc. This has been so held in Deputy Commissioner
\nof Sales Tax (Law) Board of Revenue (Taxes) vs. M\/s. PIO
\nFood Packers<\/a> (1980) Suppl. SCC 174. Therefore, it was
\ncontended, if the commodity remains the same then
\nirrespective of the process, it would not amount to manufacture.
\nThis was a patent error which was correctible under Section 20
\nof the State Sales Tax Act. Countering the appellants’
\nsubmission for a liberal construction, it is argued that since an
\nexemption was sought to be claimed, the language would have
\nto be strictly construed. The list of ineligible industries in
\nAnnexure I to the 1993 G.O. did not, according to the
\nrespondents, give rise to any presumption that the process
\ncarried on by the industries excluded, indicated what was
\nmanufacture for the purpose of the 1993 G.O. The list merely
\nexcluded certain industries altogether to avoid controversy.
\nThe learned counsel conceded that as far as the production of
\nliquor ammonia was concerned, it could reasonably be said that
\nit had undergone a process of manufacture but as far as the
\nbottling of the anhydrous ammonia was concerned, the
\nprocess could not amount to manufacture.\n<\/p>\n
In our opinion, the appeal must be allowed.  At the outset
\nwe may note that the earlier  decision of the Division Bench
\nrelied upon by the High Court is clearly distinguishable.  It dealt
\nwith a different Government order and the Court based its
\ndecision to a large extent on the fact that the eligibility
\ncertificate which had been granted to the assessee unit in that
\ncase was not only temporary but had also been cancelled.  In
\nthe present case, the grant of the eligibility certificate was not
\nthe outcome of an unconsidered  decision based on extraneous
\nconsiderations.  The matter was considered in depth and
\nsanctioned by the District Level Committee  of which, as we
\nhave already noted, the DCCT was a part.  The appellant had
\nmade a full disclosure of the process undertaken in respect of
\nwhich sales tax exemption was granted.  No malafides has
\nbeen alleged against the appellant nor is it the case of the
\nrespondents that the appellant had taken any unfair advantage
\nof the 1993 G.O.\n<\/p>\n
 Doubtless the 1993 G.O. which was issued by the
\nIndustries & Commerce Department had granted the sales tax
\nholiday on products manufactured in industrial units set up by
\nthe State Government. But the interpretation of the word
\n‘manufacture’ as used in the 1993 G.O. by the DCCT was
\nwholly incorrect.   For one, the DCCT appears to have imported
\nthe definition of ‘manufacture’ from the law relating to excise.
\nThat was uncalled for having regard to the fact that the word
\nhad been used in a different context altogether. (See Ashirwad
\nIspat Udyog & Ors vs. State Level Committee & Ors.)
\nReliance<\/a> by the respondents on M\/s.PIO Food Packers
\n(supra) is misplaced.  In that case, sales tax was sought to be
\nlevied under the  Kerala General  Sales Tax Act, 1974 on the
\nground that  the pineapples purchased by the assessee had
\nbeen consumed in the manufacture of canned pineapple,
\npineapple jam and pineapple squash within the meaning of the
\nphrase ‘consumes such goods in the manufacture of the goods’
\nused in Section 5A(1)(b) of the Act.  It was in the context of that
\nphrase that this Court said:-\n<\/p>\n
“Commonly manufacture is the end
\nresult of one more processes through
\nwhich the original commodity is made to
\npass.  The nature and extent of
\nprocessing may vary from one case to
\nanother, and indeed there may be
\nseveral stages of processing and
\nperhaps a different kind of processing at
\neach stage.  With each process
\nsuffered, the original commodity
\nexperiences a change.  But it is only
\nwhen the change, or a series of
\nchanges, take the commodity to the
\npoint where commercially it can no
\nlonger be regarded as the original
\ncommodity but instead is recognized as
\na new and distinct article that a
\nmanufacture can be said to take place.\n<\/p>\n
Where there is no essential difference in
\nidentity between the original commodity
\nand the processed article it is not
\npossible to say that one commodity has
\nbeen consumed in the manufacture of
\nanother.  Although it has undergone a
\ndegree of processing, it must be
\nregarded as still retaining its original
\nidentity”.\n<\/p>\n
In the result it was held:\n<\/p>\n
” that when pineapple fruit is processed
\ninto pineapple slices for the purpose of
\nbeing sold in sealed cans there is no
\nconsumption of the original pineapple
\nfruit for the purpose of manufacture.\n<\/p>\n
The case does not fall within Section 5-\n<\/p>\n
A(1)(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax
\nAct”.\n<\/p>\n
In this case the  State Sales Tax Act contains no
\nprovision relating to ‘manufacture’.  The concept only finds
\nplace in the 1993 G.O. issued by the Department of Commerce
\nand Industries. It appears from the context of the other
\nprovisions of the 1993 G.O. that the word ‘manufacture’ had
\nbeen used to exclude dealers who merely purchased the goods
\nand resold the same on retail price.  What the State
\nGovernment wanted was investment and industrial activity. It is
\nin this background that the 1993 G.O. must be interpreted.
\n[See: Commissioner of Sales Tax. Vs. Industrial Coal
\nEnterprises (1992) 2 SCC 607).  The Department of
\nCommerce and Industries had by its letters dated 3rd June 1995
\nand 20th August 1996 clarified the issue.  The exemption was
\ngranted in terms of the 1993 G.O. the thrust of which was to
\nincrease the industrial development in the State. The
\nCommissioner, Commercial Tax had also in no uncertain terms
\naccepted the interpretation put by the Industries Department on
\nthe 1993 G.O. and written to the DCCT to permit sales tax
\nexemption to the appellant in accordance with the 1993 G.O.
\nfor a period of five years upto a limit of Rs.35 lakhs.\n<\/p>\n
     Besides the conclusion of the DCCT was   based on
\nan incorrect factual premise that the appellant   had not paid
\nexcise duty on the bottled ammonia.  The  DCCT  ignored  the
\nappellant’s clear statement in its  reply to the show cause
\nnotices that the bottled ammonia had been subjected to excise
\nduty and that it had paid the levy as prescribed under the
\nCentral Excise Tariff Act, 1985.\n<\/p>\n
Furthermore, under the incentive scheme in question,
\nthere was only one method of verifying the eligibility for the
\nvarious incentives granted including sales tax exemption.  The
\nprocedure was for the matter to be scrutinized and
\nrecommended by the State Level Committee and District Level
\nCommittee and the certification by the Department of Industries
\n& Commerce by  issuing an Eligibility Certificate.  There was no
\nother method prescribed under the scheme for determining an
\nindustrial unit’s eligibility for the benefits granted. The
\nDepartment of Industries & Commerce having exercised its
\nmind, and having granted the final eligibility certificate (which
\nwas valid at all material times), the Commercial Taxes
\nDepartment could not go beyond the same. More so when the
\nCommissioner, Sales Tax had accepted the Eligibility
\nCertificate issued to the appellant and had separately notified
\nthe appellants eligibility for exemption under the 1993 G.O. In
\nthese circumstances the DCCT certainly could not assume that
\nthe exemption was wrongly granted nor did he have the
\njurisdiction  under Section 20 of the State Act to go behind  the
\neligibility certificate and embark upon a fresh enquiry with
\nregard to the appellant’s eligibility for the grant of the benefits.
\nThe counter affidavit filed by the respondents-sales tax
\nauthorities is telling.  It is said that the Sales Tax Department
\nhad decided to cancel the eligibility certificates for sales tax
\nincentives.   As we have said the eligibility certificates were
\nissued by the Department of Industries and Commerce and
\ncould not be cancelled by the Sales Tax Authorities. [See in this
\nconnection: Apollo Tyres vs. CIT  Kochi, (2002) 9 SCC 1.)
\nThere is another reason why the action of the DCCT
\ncannot be upheld.  The primary facts relating to the processes
\nundertaken by the appellant at its unit were known to the
\nDepartment of Industries and Commerce and the DCCT.  The
\nonly question was what was the proper conclusion to be drawn
\nfrom these.  The Department of Industries and Commerce
\nwhich was responsible for the issuance of the 1993 G.O.
\naccepted the appellant as an eligible industry for the benefits.
\nApart from the fact that it can be assumed that the Department
\nof Industries was in the best position to construe its own order,
\nwe can also assume that in framing the scheme and granting
\neligibility to the appellant all the departments of the State
\nGovernment involved in the process had been duly consulted.
\nThe State, which is represented by the Departments, can only
\nspeak with one voice.  Having regard to the language of the
\n1993 G.O. it was the view expressed by the Department of
\nIndustries which must be taken to be that voice.
\nIt is true that on 17th March 2000, the Commissioner of
\nIndustries issued a circular cancelling Eligibility Certificates
\nissued to Industrial Gases bottling units, Mineral Water and
\nSand Benefication units.  But the Commissioner of Industries
\nhad also directed the cancellation of the Temporary\/Final
\nEligibility Certificates issued to such industries with effect from
\n30th March 2000 and to inform the units to pay sales tax with
\neffect from 31st March 2000 to the Commercial Taxes
\nDepartment.  The cancellation was, therefore, given
\nprospective effect.  If the DCCT wanted to rely on the circular, it
\nhad to give effect to it completely, and indisputably by
\n31st March, 2000 the period of sales tax exemption was over for
\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Since we are with the appellant on the merits, it is
\nunnecessary to consider the  alternative argument relating to
\nthe recovery of the sales tax from the appellant.
\nThe appeal is for the reasons stated allowed and the
\ndecision of the High Court is set aside.  The show cause
\nnotices and the impugned order of the DCCT is quashed.
\nThere will  be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S. Vadilal Chemicals Ltd vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 2 August, 2005 Author: R Pal Bench: Ruma Pal, Tarun Chatterjee CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1905 of 2004 PETITIONER: M\/s. Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. RESPONDENT: The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02\/08\/2005 BENCH: Ruma Pal […]<\/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-32567","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Vadilal Chemicals Ltd vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 2 August, 2005 - 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-vadilal-chemicals-ltd-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-2-august-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Vadilal Chemicals Ltd vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 2 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vadilal-chemicals-ltd-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-2-august-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-30T12:21:53+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=\"18 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-vadilal-chemicals-ltd-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-2-august-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-vadilal-chemicals-ltd-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-2-august-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Vadilal Chemicals Ltd vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 2 August, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-30T12:21:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-vadilal-chemicals-ltd-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-2-august-2005\"},\"wordCount\":3509,\"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\\\/ms-vadilal-chemicals-ltd-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-2-august-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-vadilal-chemicals-ltd-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-2-august-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-vadilal-chemicals-ltd-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-2-august-2005\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Vadilal Chemicals Ltd vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 2 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-08-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-30T12:21:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-vadilal-chemicals-ltd-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-2-august-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-vadilal-chemicals-ltd-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-2-august-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-vadilal-chemicals-ltd-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-2-august-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Vadilal Chemicals Ltd vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 2 August, 2005\"}]},{\"@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. Vadilal Chemicals Ltd vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 2 August, 2005 - 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-vadilal-chemicals-ltd-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-2-august-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Vadilal Chemicals Ltd vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 2 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vadilal-chemicals-ltd-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-2-august-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-30T12:21:53+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vadilal-chemicals-ltd-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-2-august-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vadilal-chemicals-ltd-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-2-august-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Vadilal Chemicals Ltd vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 2 August, 2005","datePublished":"2005-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-30T12:21:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vadilal-chemicals-ltd-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-2-august-2005"},"wordCount":3509,"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\/ms-vadilal-chemicals-ltd-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-2-august-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vadilal-chemicals-ltd-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-2-august-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vadilal-chemicals-ltd-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-2-august-2005","name":"M\/S. Vadilal Chemicals Ltd vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 2 August, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-08-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-30T12:21:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vadilal-chemicals-ltd-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-2-august-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vadilal-chemicals-ltd-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-2-august-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-vadilal-chemicals-ltd-vs-the-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-2-august-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Vadilal Chemicals Ltd vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 2 August, 2005"}]},{"@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\/32567","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=32567"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32567\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32567"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32567"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32567"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}