{"id":39134,"date":"2011-08-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-the-blossom-products-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-29-august-2011"},"modified":"2018-04-07T09:57:37","modified_gmt":"2018-04-07T04:27:37","slug":"ms-the-blossom-products-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-29-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-the-blossom-products-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-29-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.The Blossom Products vs The Special Commissioner And on 29 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S.The Blossom Products vs The Special Commissioner And on 29 August, 2011<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 29\/08\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA\n\nW.P.(MD)No.6599 of 2006\nW.P.(MD)Nos.6600 to 6602, 7571, 7572,7934, 7935\/2006\n3748\/2007, 5709 to 5713\/2007, 257\/2008 & 10246 to 10248\/2009\nand\nM.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 1 of 2006, 1,1,1,1 & 1 of 2007, 2 of 2007, 2 of 2008, 1,1,1,1 of\n2009 & 2 of 2009\n\nM\/s.The Blossom Products,\nRepresented by its Proprietor,\nI.M.Chellapandi,\n12\/4, Ayyanarpuram Main Road,\nChinthamani,\nMdurai-9.                 ... Petitioner in W.P.6599\/2006\n\nVs.\n\n1.The Special Commissioner and\n  Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,\n  Chepauk,\n  Chennai.5.\n\n2.The Commercial Tax Officer,\n  Tirupparankundaram Assessment Circle,\n  Madurai.               ... Respondents in W.P.6599\/2006<\/pre>\n
PRAYER in W.P.(MD)No.6599 OF 2006<\/p>\n
Writ Petition is filed under Article
\n226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of  Certiorarified
\nMandamus,  calling for the records comprised  in TNGST\/6231932\/2005-06, dated
\n20.06.2006, on the file of the second respondent and quash the same and
\nconsequently, and direct the second respondent herein to collect tax at 4% under
\nEntry 14 of Part B of the First Schedule to the TNGST Act, 1959 on the sale of
\nBOOM Flower.\n<\/p>\n
!For Petitioner
\n in all W.P.s.  … Mr.N.Venkatraman
\n                    Senior Counsel
\n                    for R.Karthikeyan
\n^For Respondents
\n in all W.P.s.  … Mrs.S.Bharathi
\n                    Government Advocate<\/p>\n
:COMMON ORDER<\/p>\n
\tThe order shall be disposed of W.P.(MD)Nos.6599, 6600 to 6602, 7571, 7572,
\n7934, 7935\/2006, 3748\/2007, 5709 to 5713\/2007, 257\/2008 & 10246 to 10248\/2009,
\nas the common question of law and facts are involved in all these cases. For the
\nsake of brevity, the facts are being taken from W.P.(MD)No.1684 of 2006.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The petitioner, in the writ petition, is engaged in the business of
\nmanufacturer and selling of ‘Boom flower’, which is a chemical fertilizer,
\nliable to sales tax under Part-B of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General
\nSales Tax Act, 1959.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The case of the petitioners is that, on 24th January 2005, the
\npetitioners were informed by the Enforcement Wing Officials that their product,
\n‘Boom Floor’ is liable to tax at 12% under Residuary entry, being a micro
\nnutrient, and not falling under entry 14 of Part “B”.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.It is submitted by the petitioners, in all the writ petitions, that
\nduring the year 2003-04 and 2005-06, the petitioners had effected sale of Boom
\nFloor, by paying tax at 4%, by treating it to be chemical fertilizer, falling
\nunder Entry 14 of Part B of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales
\nTax Act, 1959<\/p>\n
\t5.The product of the petitioners was cleared and exported, as chemical
\nfertilizer, under H.S.CODE 3105.90 i.e., entry for fertilizer.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.The product of the petitioners, is sold to dealers, for fertilizers and
\npesticides, for use of by the farmers. On being informed by the Enforcement
\nWing, that the product of the petitioners, was taxable at 12%, under the
\nresiduary entry, the petitioners approached the respondent No.1 for seeking
\nclarification qua the rate of tax, applicable on the sale of ‘Boom floor’. The
\napplications were moved by the petitioners in Form XIV under section 28(a) of
\nthe Act, along with literature.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.On the applications of the petitioners, clarification was issued, which
\nreads as under:–<\/p>\n
\n\n\"Commercial Taxes Department\n\nFrom,                                  To,\nTmt.S.Malathi,IAS.,                    Tvl.Blossom Products\nSpecial Commissioner and\nCommissioner of Commercial Tax,        12\/4 Ayyanarpuram,\nChepauk, Chennai-600 005               Madurai 6245 009.\n\t\tLr.No.L.Dis.Acts cell II\/21707\/06, dated \t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t26.06.2006\n  \t\t\t\tClarification:No.83\/08\n\nSir,\n\n\t\tSub:Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 - Rate \t\t    of\nTax Clarification under Sec.28-A of the \t\t\t    Act for \"Boom Flower\"-\nClarification issued - \t\t    Reconsideration of - Requested - reg.\n\n\t\tRef: 1.CCT's D.Dis Acts Cell 11\/32368\/05, dated \t\t\t\n\t  5.7.05\n\n\t\t\t2.Reconsideration petition dated 3.8.05 from \t\t\t\nthe petitioners.\n\n\t\t\t3.CCT's L.Dis Ac.s Cell II\/47078\/05, dated \t\t\t\n\t  3.3.08.\n\n\t\t\t4.Further reconsideration petition, dated \t\t\t\n\t  17.04.06 from the petitioners.\n\n<\/pre>\n
\tIn the reference 1st cited, it has been clarified that “Boom Flower” (in
\nliquid and granular form) is taxable at 12% under residuary entry No.40, Part D,
\nFirst Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the reference 2nd cited, they have filed a reconsideration petition.
\nAfter a careful scrutiny and discussion, the earlier clarification issued was
\nreiterated in the reference 3rd cited.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the reference 4th cited, they have again filed a reconsideration
\npetition with a request that their product may be classified as an item falling
\nunder Entry No.14, Part B, First Schedule, which is taxable at 4%.\n<\/p>\n
\tThey have also enclosed a copy of latest test report from Regional Testing
\nLaboratory (Department of Industries and Commerce), Madurai.  This test report
\nvary from the earlier one which they have furnished at the time of first
\nreconsideration.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn this office letter, dated 18.5.06, they have been requested to explain
\nthe reasons for such variation instead of explaining the reasons for variation,
\nthey have sent an opinion letter from one Dr.S.Sundaresan, Research and
\nDevelopment Consultant, Madurai.  In the above opinion letter, he has mentioned
\nthat the commodities involved in both the test reports are one and the same.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe issue involved is discussed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Nitrobenzene” falls under Central Excise Tariff Heading 2904.20 which
\nreads as “Derivatives containing only nitro or only nitro groups”.  According to
\ncase law report in 118 STC 379(SC), Chemical Fertilizers, that is to say (xxix)
\nUrea (other than technical grade urea), (xxx) Urea Ammonium Phosphate, (xxxi)
\nZinc Sulphate, the expression ‘that is to say’ is descriptive, enumerative and
\nexhaustive and circumscribes to a greater extent the scope of the entry.  Apart
\nfrom the filler and carrier contents (76.5%), Zinc Sulphate (0.55) and Urea (3%)
\nare negligible and the predominant Nitro benzene (20%) is not falling under the
\nitems listed under the category of chemicals fertilizers.\n<\/p>\n
\tIf there is a mixture of the sub-items in the Entry with any other foreign
\nsubstance which is not an organic manure, then it would not fall within the
\nscope of Entry (Entry No.14\/Part B\/First Schedule) as the mixed product is a
\ncommercially different one and is not the same as components as held in Shaw
\nWallace and Co. vs. State of Tamil Nadu,<\/a> 37 STC 522(SC).\n<\/p>\n
\tManure mixture made up of various chemical fertilizers mentioned in the
\nEntry and sold as a different chemical product and for a different user is not
\nchemical fertilizer as per the decision in State of Tamil Nadu vs. Tvl.Rallis
\nIndia Ltd<\/a> – 34 STC 532 (Madras).\n<\/p>\n
\tThis issue was dealt with elaborately and orders passed in the reference
\n3rd cited.  Therefore, the contentions put forth by the petitioners deserves no
\nconsideration.  The earlier clarification issue in the reference 3rd cites
\nrequires no change and is reiterated.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t      \t\t\tSd\/-S.Malathi
\n\t\tSpl. Commr. & Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.On the basis of the clarification issued, the petitioners were assessed
\nto sale tax at 12%, by treating the product of petitioners to be falling under
\nEntry No.40 of Part “B”.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.The impugned clarification and the assessment order is challenged by the
\npetitioners, by referring to, the Entry First Schedule of Tamil Nadu General
\nSales Tax Act 1959, which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
Prior to 1970: Item 21 of the First Schedule:-\n<\/p>\n
\tChemical fertilizer, that is to say-\n<\/p>\n
\t(1)Ammonium sulphate; (2)ammonium nitrate; (3)urea;  (4)ammonium chloride;
\n(5)sodium nitrate; (6)calcium ammonium nitrate; (7)Super phosphate single;
\n(8)super phosphate triple; (9) kotka phosphate; (10)di-calcium phosphate; (11)
\npotassium chloride (muriate of potash); (12)sulphate of potash; (13)mono-
\nammonium phosphate; (14)di-ammo-nium phosphate; (15)bone-meal; (16) any mixture
\nof one or more of the articles mentioned in the items (1 to 15) and one or more
\nof the organic manures.\n<\/p>\n
Present Entry 14 of Part-B:\n<\/p>\n
\tChemical fertilizers, that is to say-\n<\/p>\n
\t(i)Aluminium chloride, (ii)Ammonium molyddate, (iii)Ammonium phosphate
\nsulphate of any description (iv)Ammonium sulphate (v)Ammonium sulphate nitrate\n<\/p>\n
(vi)Bone meal (vii)Borex (Sodium Fetroborate0 (viii) Calcium ammonium nitrate\n<\/p>\n
(ix)Chelated iron as Fe-EDTA (x)Chelated zinc as Zn-EDTA, (xi) Copper Sulphate,\n<\/p>\n
(xii)Di-ammonium phosphate (xiii)Di-calcium phosphate (xiv)Ferrous sulphate\n<\/p>\n
(xv)Fused calcium magnesium phosphate (xvi)Kotka phosphate (xvii)Manganese
\nsulphate (xviii) Micro nutrient (xix)Mineral gypsum, (xx)Mono ammonium
\nphosphate, xxi)Nitro phosphate of any description (xxii)N P K complex of various
\ngrades (xxiii)Potassium chloride (Muriate of potash) (xxiv)Rock phosphate,
\n(xxv)Solubor (xxvi)Sulphate of  potash (xxvii)Super phosphate single
\n(xxviii)super phosphate triple (xxix) Urea (other than technical grade urea)
\n(xxx) Urea ammonium phosphate (xxxi)Zinc sulphate and (xxxii) Any mixture of two
\nor more of the articles mentioned in items (i) to (xxxi) above with or without
\nthe addition of other articles (on the turnover relating to components thereof
\nwhich have no already suffered tax).\n<\/p>\n
Present Entry 40 of Part D:\n<\/p>\n
\tAll other goods not specified elsewhere in any of the schedules. ”\n<\/p>\n
\t10.The contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners is
\nthat the impugned clarification goes contrary to entry 14 of the Part-B, as the
\nproduct of the petitioners is Zinc Sulphate, falling under only (xxxix) and Urea
\nAmmonium Phosphate falling under only (xxxi) along with mixture Nitro benzene
\nand Nitro.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners,
\ncontends that once the product falls under Entry 14, Part B, it could not be
\ntreated to be under residuary entry. Therefore, the impugned clarification,
\nbeing arbitrary to the provision of the Statute, cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.It is also the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the
\npetitioners that the respondent No.1 wrongly treated the product of the
\npetitioners to be falling under residuary entry, merely because, it contains of
\nNitro and Nitro benzene added to the Urea and Zinc Sulphate.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.The contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners
\ndeserves to be accepted, in view of the decision of this court, in the case of
\nTranselektra Domestic Products P. Ltd., vs. C.T.O, 1993 (90) STC 436, wherein
\nthis Court was pleased to lay down as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“On going through the decision of the Tribunal, I am in entire agreement
\nwith the line of reasoning adopted therein. Even that apart, the entry No. 66 of
\nthe First Schedule to the Act while describing the various commodities as
\nfalling within it refers to insecticides generally and not with or of any
\nparticular percentage of combination or composition. As a matter of fact, the
\nconcluding portion of the entry “and combinations thereof” without prescribing
\nany particular percentage is an indicator that what was envisaged therein is
\nthat the product may be an insecticide simpliciter or a combination of an
\ninsecticide to bring it within the meaning of the entry and it need not
\nnecessarily be of any particular percentage of combination of any one or more of
\nthe category of goods referred to in the entry. The stand taken to the contra
\nfor the Revenue is wholly misconceived. The other aspects regarding the right of
\nthe department to revise the classification administratively by the circulars
\nand the efficacy of the same need not be gone into by me in view of the
\nconclusion of mine that the product, for the reasons stated already, falls
\nsquarely within the meaning of entry 66 of the First Schedule to the Act. The
\nprinciple of “ejusdem generis” therefore, has no applications to the case on
\nhand. Consequently I see no merit in the stand taken by the respondents and
\nthere shall be a declaration, instead of mandamus as prayed for, that the
\nproduct of the petitioners, viz., mosquito mats under the brand name “Good
\nKnight” falls under entry 66 of the First Schedule to the Tamil Nadu General
\nSales Tax Act, 1959. The writ petition shall stand ordered accordingly. No
\ncosts.”\n<\/p>\n
\t14.The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners also contended that the
\nrespondent No.1 wrongly placed reliance on the judgment of this Court, in the
\ncase of the State of Tamil Nadu vs. Rallis India Ltd.,<\/a> 1974 (34) STC 532  and
\nthe judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Shaw Wallance & Co.
\nLtd., vs. The State of Tamil Nadu,<\/a> 1976 (37) STC 522(SC), to record a finding
\nthat it is a content of all ingredients, which determine the product for entry
\nunder the Sales Tax Act. Whereas, in the said judgments, the issue was not with
\nrespect of the ingredients of a particular product, but “whether when a new
\nproduct formed by mixture of two products, and sold as a different product then
\nwould attract tax or would be exempted, under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax
\nAct 1959”.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.There is force also in this contention of the learned Senior counsel
\nappearing for the petitioners. The reading of the judgments referred to above,
\ndo not show that, the question decided was to consider a product, under the
\nparticular entry, in view of its ingredients, but deals with the question as to
\nwhether the product, created by mixture of two products can be treated to be
\nsame or different.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.The respondent No.1, was error, in relying on these judgments, to hold
\nthat the product of the petitioners will fall under residuary item, only because
\nthe contents of Nitro-benzene was higher then of Zinc Sulphate and Urea.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.The reading of 14-B does not show that any such ratio has been fixed
\nfor categorizing a product, under particular entry, therefore, in view of the
\nlaw laid down by this court in case of Transelektra Domestic Products P. Ltd.,
\nvs. C.T.O, (supra), the product of the petitioner cannot be treated to be
\nfalling under residuary item.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.The learned counsel for the respondents State, did not dispute the
\nproposition, as raised, but contended that the points raised do not arise, in
\nthe present writ petitions, for the simple reason that the clarification given
\nby the Commissioner is not adjudicatory order, which may call for interference
\nby this court. This court cannot go into the correctness of the clarification,
\nin exercise of any jurisdiction.  In support of this contention, reliance is
\nplaced on the judgment of this court, in the case of Amul Ploycure Industries
\nLtd., Vs. T.N.T.S.T, [2004)134 STC 526.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.This contention of the learned counsel for the State deserves to be
\nnoticed to be rejected, in the view of the judgment of the Constitutional Bench
\nof the Honourable Supreme Court, in the case of Filterco and another vs.
\nCommissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh and another, [1986 (61) STC 318,
\nwherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, was pleased to lay down, as under:-\n<\/p>\n
  “We are of opinion that the High Court should have examined the merits of the
\ncase instead of dismissing the Writ Petition in limine in the manner it has
\ndone. The order passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax was clearly binding of
\nthe assessing authority under Section 42B(2) and although technically it would
\nhave been open to the appellants to urge their contentions before the appellate
\nauthority namely, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, that would be a mere
\nexercise in futility when a superior officer namely, the Commissioner, has
\nalready passed a well considered order in the exercise of his statutory
\njurisdiction under Sub-section (1) of Section 42-B of the Act holding that 21
\nvarieties of the compressed woolen felt manufactured by the appellants are not
\neligible for exemption under Entry 6 of Schedule I of the Act.”\n<\/p>\n
\t20.The learned counsel for the State, thereafter, contended that the
\nproduct of the petitioners is not a chemicals fertilizer, therefore, was rightly
\nplaced under residuary item, as it is a Micro Nutrient, which does not fall
\nunder the Fertilizer Control Order.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.This contention of the learned counsel for the State, again deserves to
\nbe noticed to be rejected, as the Honourable Supreme Court, in the case of
\nCommissioner of C.EX., Bangalore vs. Karnataka Agro Chemicals,<\/a>
\n2008(227)E.L.T.12(S.C.), has been pleased to lay down, that is generic sense
\n“micro-nutrients” are also a kind of fertilizer, in the functional sense.
\nThough, in the said case, it was held that it was not be so treated for the
\npurposes of Central Excise Act, in view of its exclusion under Excise Act.
\nWhereas in the present case, it is not in dispute that the product was sold and
\nexported under HS CODE 3105.90, which deals with the fertilizer.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.It is also well settled that if two interpretations are possible, in
\nthat case, the one favouring the assess is to be followed.\n<\/p>\n
\t23.For the reasons stated, all the writ petitions are allowed, and
\nimpugned orders in all the writ petitions are set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t24.Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
er<\/p>\n
To,<\/p>\n
1.The Special Commissioner &
\n  Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,
\n  Chepauk,
\n  Chennai.5.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Commercial Tax Officer,
\n  Tirupparankundaram Assessment Circle,
\n  Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court M\/S.The Blossom Products vs The Special Commissioner And on 29 August, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29\/08\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P.(MD)No.6599 of 2006 W.P.(MD)Nos.6600 to 6602, 7571, 7572,7934, 7935\/2006 3748\/2007, 5709 to 5713\/2007, 257\/2008 & 10246 to 10248\/2009 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 1 of 2006, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-39134","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S.The Blossom Products vs The Special Commissioner And on 29 August, 2011 - 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-the-blossom-products-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-29-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.The Blossom Products vs The Special Commissioner And on 29 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-the-blossom-products-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-29-august-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-07T04:27:37+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=\"13 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-the-blossom-products-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-29-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-the-blossom-products-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-29-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.The Blossom Products vs The Special Commissioner And on 29 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-07T04:27:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-the-blossom-products-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-29-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2516,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-the-blossom-products-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-29-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-the-blossom-products-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-29-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-the-blossom-products-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-29-august-2011\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.The Blossom Products vs The Special Commissioner And on 29 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-07T04:27:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-the-blossom-products-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-29-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-the-blossom-products-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-29-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-the-blossom-products-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-29-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.The Blossom Products vs The Special Commissioner And on 29 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@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.The Blossom Products vs The Special Commissioner And on 29 August, 2011 - 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-the-blossom-products-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-29-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.The Blossom Products vs The Special Commissioner And on 29 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-the-blossom-products-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-29-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-07T04:27:37+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-the-blossom-products-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-29-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-the-blossom-products-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-29-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.The Blossom Products vs The Special Commissioner And on 29 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-07T04:27:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-the-blossom-products-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-29-august-2011"},"wordCount":2516,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-the-blossom-products-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-29-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-the-blossom-products-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-29-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-the-blossom-products-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-29-august-2011","name":"M\/S.The Blossom Products vs The Special Commissioner And on 29 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-07T04:27:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-the-blossom-products-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-29-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-the-blossom-products-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-29-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-the-blossom-products-vs-the-special-commissioner-and-on-29-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.The Blossom Products vs The Special Commissioner And on 29 August, 2011"}]},{"@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\/39134","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=39134"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39134\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39134"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39134"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39134"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}