{"id":4766,"date":"2008-06-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-jt-commissioner-on-19-june-2008"},"modified":"2016-08-08T00:11:03","modified_gmt":"2016-08-07T18:41:03","slug":"gujarat-vs-jt-commissioner-on-19-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-jt-commissioner-on-19-june-2008","title":{"rendered":"Gujarat vs Jt.Commissioner on 19 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Gujarat vs Jt.Commissioner on 19 June, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: D.A.Mehta,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.B.Antani,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/8176\/2000\t 8\/ 8\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 8176 of 2000\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA   Sd\/-\n \n\n  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI  \nSd\/- \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?  NO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?  NO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?  NO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?  NO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nGUJARAT\nCARBON &amp; INDUSTRTIAL LTD. - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nJT.COMMISSIONER\nOF INCOME TAX - Respondent(s)\n \n\n===============================================================\nAppearance : \nMR\nMJ SHAH WITH MR JP SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1, \nMR MANISH R BHATT\nfor Respondent(s) :\n1, \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 D.A.MEHTA\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\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 19\/06\/2008 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)<\/p>\n<p>1\tThis<br \/>\npetition challenges notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax<br \/>\nAct,1961 (the Act) dated 19.03.1999 for Assessment year  1988-89.\n<\/p>\n<p>2\tThe<br \/>\npetitioner, a Public Limited Company  is engaged in the business of<br \/>\nmanufacturing Carbon-black. On 17.03.1998 search proceedings took<br \/>\nplace under section 132 of the Act. After detailed inquiry calling<br \/>\nfor  various details and evidence on the basis of discrepancies found<br \/>\nduring the course of search operation the assessing officer recorded<br \/>\nas under :\n<\/p>\n<p>?SSince the assessee has<br \/>\nalready  taken into account  all the expense relating to purchase,<br \/>\nmfg. And sales, as such whole of the amount of Rs.3,26,69,000\/- is<br \/>\nconsidered  to be its sales of C.B.made outside its regular books of<br \/>\naccounts.\n<\/p>\n<p>Further, during search<br \/>\noperation as per physical verification of stock inventory prepared it<br \/>\nwas found  that excess stock of finished goods (C.B.) was found to<br \/>\nthe extent of 136.234 M.T.which is valued at ?  Rs.21,36,131.00.<br \/>\nThis excess stock of C.B. Is considered to be part of suppression of<br \/>\nyield  of C.B. As described  in previous paras of this order, hence a<br \/>\nsum of Rs.21,36,131.00 is set off against the total unaccounted  sale<br \/>\nconsideration of yield of C.B. worked out above. Thus in nutshell a<br \/>\nnet addition of Rs. 3,05,42,869.00 (3,26,69,000 ?  21,36,131) is<br \/>\nmade in this account??.\n<\/p>\n<p>3\tThe<br \/>\nassessee carried the matter in Appeal before  Commissioner  (Appeals)<br \/>\nwho gave partial  relief. Against the order of  Commissioner<br \/>\n(Appeals) both the assessee and the department preferred  appeals<br \/>\nbefore the Tribunal. To complete the chain of events it may be noted<br \/>\nthat during pendency of the said appeals the petitioner assessee took<br \/>\nbenefit of Karvivad Samadhan Scheme.\n<\/p>\n<p>3\tThe<br \/>\nlearned Advocate for the petitioner-assessee  submitted that  the<br \/>\nimpugned notice has been issued  beyond the period of four years from<br \/>\nthe end of the Assessment Year in question viz. Assessment Year<br \/>\n1988-89; that there is no violation on the part of the assessee  as<br \/>\nrequired by the  Proviso to Section 147 of the Act, and the<br \/>\ndepartment has not even stated  that there is any failure  as<br \/>\nstipulated by the Proviso to Section 147 of the Act  as can be seen<br \/>\nfrom the reasons recorded which form part of the Affidavit-in-Reply<br \/>\ntendered by the  respondent authority. That in fact, in relation to<br \/>\nthe so called  excess stock of carbon-black  valued at Rs.21,36,131\/-<br \/>\nthe authorities had after  application of mind and scrutiny  given<br \/>\nthe set-off  as can be seen from the discussion in the assessment<br \/>\norder and hence the impugned notice was bad in law. In support of the<br \/>\nsubmissions made reliance has been placed on  the following two<br \/>\ndecisions of this Court :\n<\/p>\n<p>Mohamed Nasim Abdul Razak<br \/>\nMistry V\/s. Wealth Tax Officer &#8211; (1995) 216 ITR 104.\n<\/p>\n<p>Swastik Engineering And<br \/>\nManufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. V\/s. Income Tax Officer ?  (1991) 189<br \/>\nITR 667.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tOn<br \/>\nbehalf of the respondent authority  Mr. M.R.Bhatt, learned Senior<br \/>\nStanding Counsel  submitted that as could be seen from the reasons<br \/>\nrecorded,  during course of search and seizure proceedings under<br \/>\nsection 132 of the Act the value of excess stock  of carbon-black<br \/>\namounting to Rs.21,36,131\/- was found but the assessee had neither<br \/>\nshown the sale of such stock of finished goods nor was the value of<br \/>\nthe same shown as part of closing stock as on 31.03.1988. Hence,<br \/>\nthere was failure on the part of the petitioner-assessee to disclose<br \/>\nfully and truly all material facts relevant for the purpose of<br \/>\nassessment and respondent authority had rightly exercised<br \/>\njurisdiction under section 147 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tThe<br \/>\nreasons recorded by the assessing officer  read as under :\n<\/p>\n<p> ?SReasons for the belief<br \/>\nthat the income has escaped assessment.\n<\/p>\n<p>The assessee is a limited<br \/>\ncompany dealing in the manufacturing  of carbon black. The assessment<br \/>\nu\/s.143(3) was finalised on 30.12.96 at a total income  of<br \/>\nRs.4,98,26,170\/- as against returned income of Rs.2,35,67,582\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>A search action u\/s. 132 was<br \/>\ncarried out in this case on  17.03.1988. During the search, a<br \/>\ndetailed inventory of stock lying in the factory premises of the<br \/>\nassessee was prepared. Accordingly, a difference was found  in the<br \/>\nstock found as per  physical  verification and stock as per books of<br \/>\naccount. The physical stock of raw material  and finished goods  was<br \/>\nfound  to be excess than the stock as per books of account on the<br \/>\ndate of search by Rs.26,59,600\/-. Out of total excess stock found,<br \/>\nexcess stock of finished goods  (carbon black) weighing 136.234 MT<br \/>\nvalued at Rs.21,36,131\/- was found.\n<\/p>\n<p>As per order dated  30.12.96,<br \/>\naddition of Rs.3,26,69,900\/- was made on account of low yield of<br \/>\ncarbon black. However, the value of excess stock of carbon black of<br \/>\nRs.21,36,131\/- found at the time of search was reduced from  the<br \/>\naddition on account of low yield  considering that the excess stock<br \/>\nof carbon black found was part of the low yield determined. No<br \/>\nseparate addition on account of excess stock found of carbon black<br \/>\nwas made.\n<\/p>\n<p>A perusal of the case records<br \/>\nreveals that the assessee has neither shown the sale of this stock of<br \/>\nfinished goods during the period from  17.03.1988 nor it has  shown<br \/>\nthe value of the same as part of the closing stock as on 31.03.1988.\n<\/p>\n<p>In view of the above, I have<br \/>\nreason to believe that the income of Rs.21,36,131\/-  has escaped<br \/>\nassessment. In my opinion, this is a fit case for reassessment  u\/s.<br \/>\n147 of the I.T.Act, 1961. Therefore, notice u\/s. 148 is being issued<br \/>\nfor making reassessment u\/s.147 of the I.T.Act, 1961 in this case??.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tOn<br \/>\ngoing through the aforesaid reasons it is apparent that the assessing<br \/>\nofficer  is conscious while recording reasons for proposed reopening<br \/>\nthat as per assessment order dated 30.12.1996 addition to the tune of<br \/>\nRs.3,26,69,900\/- was made on account of low yield of carbon-black and<br \/>\nfrom the said  amount  the value of excess stock of carbon-black  to<br \/>\nthe tune of Rs.21,36,131\/- was reduced. This indicates  that<br \/>\nassessing officer,  while framing assessment order had applied his<br \/>\nmind to the aforesaid item relatable to value of excess stock of<br \/>\ncarbon-black.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tIn<br \/>\nfact, as can be seen from the extract  reproduced hereinbefore, there<br \/>\nis a categorical finding that the whole of the amount of<br \/>\nRs.3,26,69,000\/- has been considered to be sales made by the assessee<br \/>\noutside Regular Books of Accounts. The excess stock  of finished<br \/>\ngoods of carbon-black to the extent of Rs.21,36,131\/- is considered<br \/>\nto be a part of the aforesaid suppressed sales of carbon-black and<br \/>\nhas been given  set-off  by making a net addition of<br \/>\nRs.3,05,42,869\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tIn<br \/>\nthe aforesaid set of facts and circumstances of the case it is not<br \/>\npossible to state that there is any failure on part of the assessee<br \/>\nto fully and truly disclose all material facts  relevant for the<br \/>\nassessment of the assessment year in question. At the most, it can be<br \/>\ntermed to be a case wherein the assessing officer  has formed an<br \/>\nincorrect opinion  as per opinion of the successor assessing officer.<br \/>\nIn the circumstances, the successor assessing officer cannot treat<br \/>\nthe assessee to be in default of non-disclosure. Considering the fact<br \/>\nthat admittedly the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act is<br \/>\nissued beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant<br \/>\nAssessment Year  the said notice is required to be quashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tFor<br \/>\nthe reasons stated hereinbefore, notice under section 148 of the Act<br \/>\ndated 19.03.1999 for Assessment Year  1988-89 is hereby quashed. The<br \/>\npetition is allowed accordingly. Rule made absolute. There shall be<br \/>\nno order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>\t\t\t\tSd\/-\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n \n\n      \n      (D.A.\nMehta, J.)\t(H.B. Antani, J.)\t\n \n\n \n\n \n\nM.M.BHATT\n\n    \n\n \n\t   \n      \n      \n\t    \n\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n\t   \n      \n\t  \t    \n\t\t   Top\n\t   \n      \n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Gujarat vs Jt.Commissioner on 19 June, 2008 Author: D.A.Mehta,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.B.Antani,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/8176\/2000 8\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8176 of 2000 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Sd\/- HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI Sd\/- ========================================================= 1 Whether [&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-4766","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>Gujarat vs Jt.Commissioner on 19 June, 2008 - 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\/gujarat-vs-jt-commissioner-on-19-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gujarat vs Jt.Commissioner on 19 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-jt-commissioner-on-19-june-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-06-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-07T18:41:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-jt-commissioner-on-19-june-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-jt-commissioner-on-19-june-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gujarat vs Jt.Commissioner on 19 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-07T18:41:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-jt-commissioner-on-19-june-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1262,\"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\\\/gujarat-vs-jt-commissioner-on-19-june-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-jt-commissioner-on-19-june-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-jt-commissioner-on-19-june-2008\",\"name\":\"Gujarat vs Jt.Commissioner on 19 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-07T18:41:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-jt-commissioner-on-19-june-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-jt-commissioner-on-19-june-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gujarat-vs-jt-commissioner-on-19-june-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gujarat vs Jt.Commissioner on 19 June, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Gujarat vs Jt.Commissioner on 19 June, 2008 - 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\/gujarat-vs-jt-commissioner-on-19-june-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gujarat vs Jt.Commissioner on 19 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-jt-commissioner-on-19-june-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-07T18:41:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-jt-commissioner-on-19-june-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-jt-commissioner-on-19-june-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gujarat vs Jt.Commissioner on 19 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-07T18:41:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-jt-commissioner-on-19-june-2008"},"wordCount":1262,"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\/gujarat-vs-jt-commissioner-on-19-june-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-jt-commissioner-on-19-june-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-jt-commissioner-on-19-june-2008","name":"Gujarat vs Jt.Commissioner on 19 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-07T18:41:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-jt-commissioner-on-19-june-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-jt-commissioner-on-19-june-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gujarat-vs-jt-commissioner-on-19-june-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gujarat vs Jt.Commissioner on 19 June, 2008"}]},{"@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\/4766","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=4766"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4766\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4766"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4766"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4766"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}