{"id":45430,"date":"2011-04-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-previously-on-18-april-2011"},"modified":"2016-12-23T20:42:00","modified_gmt":"2016-12-23T15:12:00","slug":"commissioner-vs-previously-on-18-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-previously-on-18-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs Previously on 18 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner vs Previously on 18 April, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Akil Kureshi,&amp;Nbsp;Ms Gokani,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/1543\/2009\t 6\/ 6\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 1543 of 2009\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER\nOF INCOME TAX-I - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nV\nK PATEL &amp; CO - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nMANISH R BHATT Sr Advocate with Ms MAUNA M BHATT\nfor\nAppellant \nRULE SERVED BY DS for\nOpponent \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n HONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI   18th April 2011\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n ORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)<\/p>\n<p>\tRevenue<br \/>\nis in Appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal dated 15th<br \/>\nDecember 2008, raising following questions for our consideration :-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t[A]\t&#8220;Whether<br \/>\non the facts and in the circumstances of \tthe case, and in law, the<br \/>\nAppellate Tribunal erred in \tgranting relief and determining the<br \/>\ntotal income on its \town and without any definite basis while<br \/>\nignoring \taltogether the non-compliance and hostile attitude of the<br \/>\n\tassessee in course of assessment proceedings by way of not<br \/>\n\tsubstantiating the bills and vouchers which were found to \tbe<br \/>\nself-serving ?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t[B]\t&#8220;Whether<br \/>\non the facts and in the circumstances of \tthe case, and in law, the<br \/>\nAppellate Tribunal erred in \tignoring the evidence and basis of<br \/>\ndisallowance relating to \twater charges even when there were vouchers<br \/>\nwith all the \tdefects and infirmities discussed in detail in the<br \/>\nassessment \torder and thus, whether the Tribunal&#8217;s order is perverse<br \/>\nin \tso far as it has ignored the evidence relied upon by the<br \/>\n\tAssessing Officer ?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t[C]\t&#8220;Whether<br \/>\non the facts and in the circumstances of \tthe case, and in law, the<br \/>\nAppellate Tribunal erred in \tignoring the evidence and basis of<br \/>\ndisallowance relating to \ttractor hires and transport charges even<br \/>\nwhen there were \tvouchers with all the defects and infirmities<br \/>\ndiscussed in \tdetail in the assessment order and thus, whether the<br \/>\n\tTribunal&#8217;s order is perverse in so far it has ignored the \tevidence<br \/>\nrelied upon by the Assessing Officer ?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t[D]<br \/>\n&#8220;Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the \tcase,<br \/>\nand in law, the Appellate Tribunal erred in ignoring \tthe evidence<br \/>\nand basis of disallowance relating to site \tkitchen expenses even<br \/>\nwhen there were vouchers with all \tthe defects and infirmities<br \/>\ndiscussed in detail in the \tassessment order and thus, whether the<br \/>\nTribunal&#8217;s order is \tperverse in so far it ignored the evidence<br \/>\nrelied upon by \tthe Assessing Officer ?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t[E]\t&#8220;Whether<br \/>\non the facts and in the circumstances of \tthe case, and in law, the<br \/>\nAppellate Tribunal erred in \tignoring the evidence and basis of<br \/>\ndisallowance relating to \tsand carting expenses even when there were<br \/>\nvouchers with \tall the defects and infirmities discussed in detail in<br \/>\nthe \tassessment order and thus, whether the Tribunal&#8217;s order is<br \/>\n\tperverse in so far it has ignored the evidence relied upon \tby the<br \/>\nAssessing Officer ?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t[F]\t&#8220;Whether<br \/>\non the facts and in the circumstances of \tthe case, and in law, the<br \/>\nAppellate Tribunal erred in \tignoring the evidence and basis of<br \/>\ndisallowance relating to \ttransportation expenses even when there<br \/>\nwere vouchers \twith all the defects and infirmities discussed in<br \/>\ndetail in the \tassessment order in and thus, whether the Tribunal&#8217;s<br \/>\norder \tis perverse in so far it has ignored the evidence relied upon<br \/>\n\tby the Assessing Officer ?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Previously, when the<br \/>\nappeal had come up for admission hearing, counsel for the Revenue<br \/>\ndrew our attention to the impugned order of the Tribunal to contend<br \/>\nthat the Tribunal has disposed of the appeal of the Revenue without<br \/>\nassigning any reasons. We had, therefore, by our Order dated 8th<br \/>\nMarch 2011, issued notice for final disposal. Though served, no one<br \/>\nappeared for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>We have heard learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the Revenue. We find that various issues were presented<br \/>\nbefore the Tribunal in the appeal of the Revenue. The Tribunal<br \/>\ndismissed the appeal with following observations :-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;6.\tWe<br \/>\nhave considered the rival submissions. After considering all the<br \/>\nfacts of the case, we are of the view that net profit rate of<br \/>\nassessee at 5.75% should be applied by the Assessing Officer in order<br \/>\nto determine the income of the assessee (considering the provisions<br \/>\nfor depreciation).&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     Other than above observation, the Tribunal had not made any<br \/>\nremark with regard to the merit or de-merit on the contention of the<br \/>\nRevenue. We, thus, find that the Tribunal&#8217;s order totally lacks<br \/>\nreasoning. In a separate order passed today in Tax Appeal No. 1379 of<br \/>\n2009, we had highlighted the requirement of recording the reasons,<br \/>\nparticularly when the Tribunal was inclined to allow the appeal,<br \/>\ninterfering with the Order of CIT [A]. In the said order, following<br \/>\nobservations have been made :-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;As<br \/>\na final fact finding authority, Tribunal&#8217;s factual conclusions hold<br \/>\nimmense importance in Tax Appeal carried before us. Being a<br \/>\nspecialized Tribunal, it&#8217;s appreciation on legal questions also holds<br \/>\nconsiderable importance to us. When a Tribunal&#8217;s judgment is bereft<br \/>\nof any discussion either on facts or in law, it besides being an<br \/>\nunreasoned order of a quasi judicial tribunal, also increases our<br \/>\nburden together facts from other record and to verify whether the<br \/>\nultimate conclusion that the Tribunal arrived at, calls for any<br \/>\ninterference or not. In absence of any discussion on facts or on law<br \/>\nby the Tribunal, we are left to imagine what must have weighed with<br \/>\nthe Tribunal to arrive at a particular conclusion.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tRequirement<br \/>\nof recording reasons by all authorities discharging judicial or quasi<br \/>\njudicial functions has been considered by the Apex Court in time<br \/>\nwithout numbers. In recent decision in case of Kranti<br \/>\nAssociates Private Limited &amp; Anr. Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and Ors.,<br \/>\nreported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Apex Court referring to large<br \/>\nnumber of judgments on the point summarized the position as thus.\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;47.\tSummarizing<br \/>\nthe above discussion, this Court holds:\n<\/p>\n<p>a.\n<\/p>\n<p>In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even<br \/>\nin administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone<br \/>\nprejudicially.\n<\/p>\n<p>b. A<br \/>\nquasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its<br \/>\nconclusions.\n<\/p>\n<p>c.\n<\/p>\n<p>Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider<br \/>\nprinciple of justice that justice must not only be done it must also<br \/>\nappear to be done as well.\n<\/p>\n<p>d.\n<\/p>\n<p>Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any<br \/>\npossible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even<br \/>\nadministrative power.\n<\/p>\n<p>e.\n<\/p>\n<p>Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision<br \/>\nmaker on  relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous<br \/>\nconsiderations.\n<\/p>\n<p>f.\n<\/p>\n<p>Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a<br \/>\ndecision making process as observing principles of natural justice by<br \/>\njudicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.\n<\/p>\n<p>g.\n<\/p>\n<p>Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.\n<\/p>\n<p>h.\n<\/p>\n<p>The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law<br \/>\nand constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions<br \/>\nbased on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial<br \/>\ndecision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of<br \/>\njustice.\n<\/p>\n<p>i.\n<\/p>\n<p>Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as<br \/>\ndifferent as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these<br \/>\ndecisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason<br \/>\nthat the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is<br \/>\nimportant for sustaining the litigants&#8217; faith in the justice<br \/>\ndelivery system.\n<\/p>\n<p>j.\n<\/p>\n<p>Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial<br \/>\naccountability and transparency.\n<\/p>\n<p>k.\n<\/p>\n<p>If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about<br \/>\nhis\/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether<br \/>\nthe person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to<br \/>\nprinciples of incremental ism.\n<\/p>\n<p>l.\n<\/p>\n<p>Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A<br \/>\npretense of reasons or &#8216;rubber-stamp reasons&#8217; is not to<br \/>\nbe equated with a valid decision making process.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\n\tcannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint<br \/>\n\ton abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not<br \/>\n\tonly makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but<br \/>\n\talso makes them subject to broader scrutiny.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(See<br \/>\nDavid Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 \tHarward Law<br \/>\n\tReview 731-737).\n<\/p>\n<p>n.\n<\/p>\n<p>   Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad<br \/>\ndoctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now<br \/>\nvirtually a component of human rights and was considered part of<br \/>\nStrasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and<br \/>\nAnya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court<br \/>\nreferred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which<br \/>\nrequires, &#8220;adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for<br \/>\njudicial decisions&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>o.\n<\/p>\n<p>   In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in<br \/>\nsetting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of<br \/>\nlaw, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence<br \/>\nand is virtually a part of &#8220;Due Process&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tUnder<br \/>\nthe circumstances, the impugned order is set aside.  Proceedings are<br \/>\nremanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal in<br \/>\naccordance with law after giving its reasons.  We have not expressed<br \/>\nany opinion on merits of the issue decided by the CIT (A).&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> We find that the issues<br \/>\nare required to be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration<br \/>\nin accordance with law. In the above premise, impugned order<br \/>\nof the Tribunal dated 15th December 2008 is set-aside.<br \/>\nProceedings are placed before the Tribunal for fresh consideration<br \/>\nand decision in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p> Tax Appeal is disposed<br \/>\nof accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>{Akil<br \/>\nKureshi, J.}<\/p>\n<p>{Ms.\n<\/p>\n<p>Sonia Gokani, J.}<\/p>\n<p>Prakash*<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Commissioner vs Previously on 18 April, 2011 Author: Akil Kureshi,&amp;Nbsp;Ms Gokani,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/1543\/2009 6\/ 6 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 1543 of 2009 ========================================================= COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I &#8211; Appellant(s) Versus V K PATEL &amp; CO &#8211; Opponent(s) ========================================================= [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-45430","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Commissioner vs Previously on 18 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-previously-on-18-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner vs Previously on 18 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-previously-on-18-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-23T15:12:00+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-previously-on-18-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-previously-on-18-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs Previously on 18 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-23T15:12:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-previously-on-18-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1500,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-previously-on-18-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-previously-on-18-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-previously-on-18-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Previously on 18 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-23T15:12:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-previously-on-18-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-previously-on-18-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-previously-on-18-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Previously on 18 April, 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":"Commissioner vs Previously on 18 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-previously-on-18-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs Previously on 18 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-previously-on-18-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-23T15:12:00+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-previously-on-18-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-previously-on-18-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs Previously on 18 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-23T15:12:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-previously-on-18-april-2011"},"wordCount":1500,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-previously-on-18-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-previously-on-18-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-previously-on-18-april-2011","name":"Commissioner vs Previously on 18 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-23T15:12:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-previously-on-18-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-previously-on-18-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-previously-on-18-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs Previously on 18 April, 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\/45430","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=45430"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45430\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45430"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=45430"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=45430"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}