{"id":52805,"date":"1965-11-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1965-11-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/modi-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-on-16-november-1965"},"modified":"2017-06-24T00:03:45","modified_gmt":"2017-06-23T18:33:45","slug":"modi-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-on-16-november-1965","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/modi-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-on-16-november-1965","title":{"rendered":"Modi Sugar Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P., … on 16 November, 1965"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Modi Sugar Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P., … on 16 November, 1965<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 841, \t\t 1966 SCR (2) 607<\/div>\n
Author: S Sikri<\/div>\n
Bench: Sikri, S.M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMODI SUGAR MILLS LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, U.P., LUCKNOW\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n16\/11\/1965\n\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nSUBBARAO, K.\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR  841\t\t  1966 SCR  (2) 607\n\n\nACT:\n      U.P. Sales Tax Act, (15 of 1948), s. 7 and U.P.  Sales\nTax Rules, rr. 39 and 40--Submission of returns on basis  of\nprevious  year--Election  to submit turnover  of  assessment\nyear--Sanction of commissioner if necessary.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n      For the assessment years 1948-49, 1949-50 and 1950-51,\nthe appellant was assessed on the-basis of returns filed for\nthe  turnover  of  each relevant  previous  year.   For\t the\nassessment  year 1951-52, the appellant, purporting to\tmake\nan  election  under r. 39(1) of the U.P.  Sales\t Tax  Rules,\nfiled returns of his turnover of the assessment year instead\nof  the previous year.\tThe Judge (Revision) Sales Tax\theld\nthat  without  the sanction of the  Sales  Tax\tCommissioner\nunder r. 39(2), the appellant was not entitled to do so, and\nthe  High  Court  also, on a  reference,  held\tagainst\t the\nappellant.\n       In appeal to this Court,\n       HELD : The answer of the High Court should have\tbeen\nin favour of the appellant. [610 HI\n       Under  r.  39(1), the dealer makes a choice  that  he\nwill  be  assessed  in respect of the turnover\tnot  of\t the\nprevious year, which is the normal position under s. 7,\t but\nin  respect  of the turnover of the assessment\tyear.\tRule\n39(2), requiring the sanction of the Sales Tax\tCommissioner\ncovers\tonly  the, case where such election  has  been\tmade\nunder r. 39(1), that is, where the election has been made by\na  dealer to be assessed in respect of the turnover  of\t the\nassessment  year, and the dealer wishes to exercise a  fresh\noption.\t Even assuming that, when a dealer submits a  return\nin respect of the previous year under r. 40 be is treated to\nhave  elected within that rule, yet, there is  no  provision\nlike  r. 39 (2) which debars him from exercising the  option\nunder r. 39(1).\t In the absence of an express provision like\nr.  39(2), general principles cannot debar an assessee\tfrom\nexercising a statutory right given to him. [611 A-E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 535  of
\n1964.\n<\/p>\n
      Appeal  by special leave from the judgment  and  order
\ndated July 25, 1961 of the Allahabad High Court in Sales Tax
\nReference No. 460 of 1954.\n<\/p>\n
      A.  V. Viswanatha Sastri and K. K. Jain for appellant.
\n      C.  B. Agarwala and 0. P. Rana, for respondent.
\n      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n      Sikri,  J.  This appeal by special leave\tis  directed
\nagainst\t the  judgment of the High Court  of  Judicature  at
\nAllahabad passed
\n608<\/span>
\nin a reference made to it under s. II of the U.P. Sales\t Tax
\nAct,  1948 (U.P. Act XV of 1948)-hereinafter referred to  as
\nthe  Act.   In\tthis reference the  following  question\t was
\nreferred by the Judge (Revision), Sales Tax at the  instance
\nof  the appellant,Modi Sugar Mills Ltd., hereinafter  called
\nthe assessee:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   “Whether  a dealer who has been  assessed
\n\t      to  tax on the turnover of the  previous\tyear
\n\t      according\t to  his  election  can\t change\t his
\n\t      option and elect the assessment year by filing
\n\t      quarterly\t  returns   without   the   previous
\n\t      sanction of Sales Tax Commissioner
\nThe High Court answered the question in the negative.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The   answer  to\tthis  question\tdepends\t  upon\t the
\ninterpretation of S. 7(1) of the Act, and rr. 39, 40 and  41
\nof  the U.P. Sales Tax Rules, and form IV  prescribed  under
\nthese rules.  These provisions are as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    “S. 7-(1).\tSubject to the provisions of
\n\t      section 18, every dealer whose turnover in the
\n\t      previous year is Rs. 12,000 or more in a\tyear
\n\t      shall  submit  such return or returns  of\t his
\n\t      turnover\tof  the previous year  within  sixty
\n\t      days  of\tthe commencement of  the  assessment
\n\t      year in such form and verified in such  manner
\n\t      as may be prescribed :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    Provided that the Provincial  Government
\n\t      may  prescribe  that any dealer  or  class  of
\n\t      dealers  may submit, in lieu of the return  or
\n\t      returns specified in this section, a return or
\n\t      returns of his turnover of the assessment year
\n\t      at  such intervals, in such form and  verified
\n\t      in  such\tmanner\tas may\tbe  prescribed,\t and
\n\t      thereupon all the provisions of this Act shall
\n\t      apply  as if such return or returns  had\tbeen
\n\t      duly submitted under this Section.
\n\t\t     Provided  further\tthat  the  assessing
\n\t      authority\t may in his discretion\textend the
\n\t      date  of the submission of the return  by\t any
\n\t      person or class of persons.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t     Rule  39 : Election of Assesment  year.
\n\t      (1) Any dealer may elect to submit returns  of
\n\t      his turnover of the assessment year in lieu of
\n\t      the  returns of the turnover of  the  previous
\n\t      year,  and shall signify such election in\t the
\n\t      return filed by him in Form IV.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
609<\/span><\/p>\n
      Provided\tthat a dealer who did not carry on  business
\nduring the whole of the previous year shall elect to  submit
\nhis returns of the assessment year.\n<\/p>\n
      (2) A dealer who has once signified his election under
\nsub-rule  (1) shall not again exercise his option so  as  to
\nvary the basis of assessment
\n      Provided\tthat  the Sales Tax  Commissioner  may,\t for
\nreasons to be recorded in writing and on such conditions  as
\nhe deems fit permit a dealer to exercise a fresh option.
\nRule 40.  Submission of returns
\n      Every  dealer  who  elects to  submit  return  of\t his
\nprevious  year shall, within sixty days of the\tcommencement
\nof  the assessment year, submit to the Sales Tax  Officer  a
\nreturn in Form IV showing his turnover for the previous year
\n       Provided\t that  no  dealer  whose  turnover  in\t the
\nprevious year was less than Rs. 15,000 shall be required  to
\nfurnish such returns.\n<\/p>\n
\tRule  41.   Returns of assessment  year.  (1)  Every
\ndealer\twhose estimated turnover during the assessment\tyear
\nis not less than Rs. 15,000 and who elects to submit returns
\nof  such  year shall before the last day of  July,  October,
\nJanuary and April submit to the Sales Tax Officer, a  return
\nof  his\t gross\tturnover for the quarters  ending  June\t 30,
\nSeptember  30,\tDecember 31 and March 31,  respectively,  in
\nForm IV
\n\tProvided that every dealer or firm, to whom the pro-
\nvisions\t of  sub-section (3) of Section\t 18  are  applicable
\nshall submit such returns within seven days of the expiry of
\neach  month  during  the  year\tin  which  the\tbusiness  is
\ncommenced.”\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore\twe  deal  with\tthe  interpretation  of\t the
\nsection and the rules it is necessary to give a few relevant
\nfacts.\t It  appears that for the assessment  year  1948-49,
\n1949-50 and 1950-51, the assessee was assessed on the  basis
\nof  returns  filled for the turnover of\t the  previous\tyear relev
\nant  to\t each  of these\t assessment  years.   For  the
\nassessment year 1951-52, however, the assessee purporting to
\nmake  an election under r. 39 of the rules filed returns  of
\nhis  turnover of the assessment year instead of the  returns
\nof the turn-\n<\/p>\n
610<\/span><\/p>\n
over  of the previous year.  The Judge (Revision) held\tthat
\nwithout sanction of the Sales Tax Commissioner the  assessee
\nwas not entitled to do so.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr.\t Sastri,  the  learned\tcounsel\t for  the  assessee,
\nsubmits that the    above  rules  should be  interpreted  as
\nfollows : Under sub-rule (1)  of r. 39 the election is to Me
\nreturns\t of the turnover of the assessment year\t instead  of
\nreturns\t of the turnover of the previous year and  not\tvice
\nversa.\t Sub-rule  (2) also deals with\tthe  same  election,
\ni.e.,  the election to file returns of the turnover  of\t the
\nassessment  year  instead of the turnover  of  the  previous
\nyear.  Rule 40 does not displace the above reading of r.  39
\nbecause\t it  covers the case of every dealer who  wishes  to
\nsubmit a return of the turnover of the previous year.  There
\nis no other rule which deals with such a dealer, and he says
\nthat  the  word ‘elects’ may perhaps have reference  to\t the
\nelection  mentioned  in\t form IV  which\t we  will  presently
\nconsider.  At any rate, he says that sub-r. (2) of r. 39 has
\nnothing to do with the election mentioned in r. 40.  He then
\nsubmits\t that  r. 41 is concerned with the  dealer  who\t has
\nelected under r. 39(1) to submit returns of the turnover  of
\nthe  assessment year and this rule provides various  matters
\nin this connection.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned counsel for the State, Mr. C. B. aggarwala,
\non the other hand, contends that S. 7 of the Act, read\twith
\nthe  rules,  gives  a dealer an option to  file\t returns  in
\nrespect\t of the turnover of the previous year or returns  of
\nthe  turnover of the assessment year, and he says that\tthis
\noption is and can only be exercised in the first year when a
\ndealer becomes taxable under the Act, and it is this  option
\nor  election that is covered by sub-rule (2) of r.  39.\t  He
\nrelies\tstrongly  on form IV in which  the  following  lines
\noccur
\n\t\t    “I\thave elected to submit return of  my
\n\t      turnover of the previous year ending\/month  or
\n\t      months of the assessment year”.\n<\/p>\n
In the alternative he contends that even if r. 3 9 (2)\tdoes
\nnot  cover the filing of the returns of the  previous  year,
\naccording   to\tgeneral\t principles  the   assessee   having
\nexercised  an  option  to  be assessed\tin  respect  of\t the
\nturnover of the previous year cannot now change the basis of
\nassessment.\n<\/p>\n
In our opinion the Judge (Revision) was in error in holding
\nthat the assessee was not entitled to make an election under
\nr. 39 (1) without   the\t  sanction   of\t  the\tSales\t Tax
\nCommissioner, and the answer to the question referred to the
\nHigh Court should be in favour of the assessee.\t Rule  39(2)
\nspecifically mentions an elec-\n<\/p>\n
611<\/span><\/p>\n
tion under sub-r. (1) and there is only one kind of election
\nunder  r. 39(1) and that is for a dealer to elect to  submit
\nreturns of his, turnover for the assessment year in lieu  of
\nthe returns of the turnover of the previous year.  In  other
\nwords,\tunder  r. 39(1) the, dealer makes a choice  that  he
\nwill  be  assessed  in respect of the turnover\tnot  of\t the
\nprevious year, which is normally the rule under s. 7, but in
\nrespect\t of  the return of the turnover\t of  the  assessment
\nyear.\tIt  seems to us that r. 39(2) covers only  the\tcase
\nwhere: election has been made by a dealer to be assessed  in
\nrespect of the turnover of the assessment year.\t It is\ttrue
\nthat  r.  40 also uses the word ‘elects’ but this  may\thave
\nreference  to  the lines in form IV which  we  have  already
\nreproduced above.  But assuming that when a dealer submits a
\nreturn in respect of the previous year under r. 40 and he is
\ntreated\t to  have  elected within r. 40,  yet  there  is  no
\nprovision like r. 39(2) which debars him from exercising the
\noption under r. 39(1).\tIn our opinion an express  provision
\nlike  r.  39(2)\t was  necessary to  prevent  a\tdealer\tfrom
\nexercising  the option given to him under r. 39(1).   We  do
\nnot express any opinion whether such a rule could validly be
\nmade under s. 7 (1). We are not impressed by the argument of
\nMr. Aggarwal that general principles debar the assessee from
\nexercising  the option under r. 39 (1).\t It is\ta  statutory
\nright  given to the assessee and the general principles,  if
\napplicable, cannot displace- the statutory right..\n<\/p>\n
     We may mention that the reasoning in the judgment under
\nappeal\thas  been doubted in an unreported judgment  of\t the
\nAllahabad  High\t Court\tin M\/s Mahesh  Company\tKahoo  Kothi
\nKanpur v.The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh(1).\n<\/p>\n
     In\t the  result we accept the appeal,  and\t answer\t the
\nquestion.referred to the High Court in the affirmative.\t The
\nappellant will have his costs here and in the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    Appeal allowed..\n<\/p>\n
(1) Sales Tax Reference No. 1623 of 1956; judgment delivered
\non March 13, 1963
\n612<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Modi Sugar Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P., … on 16 November, 1965 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 841, 1966 SCR (2) 607 Author: S Sikri Bench: Sikri, S.M. PETITIONER: MODI SUGAR MILLS LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, U.P., LUCKNOW DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/11\/1965 BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. BENCH: […]<\/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-52805","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nModi Sugar Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P., ... on 16 November, 1965 - 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\/modi-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-on-16-november-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Modi Sugar Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P., ... on 16 November, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/modi-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-on-16-november-1965\" \/>\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=\"1965-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-23T18:33:45+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/modi-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-on-16-november-1965#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/modi-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-on-16-november-1965\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Modi Sugar Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P., … on 16 November, 1965\",\"datePublished\":\"1965-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-23T18:33:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/modi-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-on-16-november-1965\"},\"wordCount\":1597,\"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\\\/modi-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-on-16-november-1965#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/modi-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-on-16-november-1965\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/modi-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-on-16-november-1965\",\"name\":\"Modi Sugar Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P., ... on 16 November, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1965-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-23T18:33:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/modi-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-on-16-november-1965#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/modi-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-on-16-november-1965\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/modi-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-on-16-november-1965#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Modi Sugar Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P., … on 16 November, 1965\"}]},{\"@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":"Modi Sugar Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P., ... on 16 November, 1965 - 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\/modi-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-on-16-november-1965","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Modi Sugar Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P., ... on 16 November, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/modi-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-on-16-november-1965","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1965-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-23T18:33:45+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/modi-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-on-16-november-1965#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/modi-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-on-16-november-1965"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Modi Sugar Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P., … on 16 November, 1965","datePublished":"1965-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-23T18:33:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/modi-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-on-16-november-1965"},"wordCount":1597,"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\/modi-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-on-16-november-1965#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/modi-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-on-16-november-1965","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/modi-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-on-16-november-1965","name":"Modi Sugar Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P., ... on 16 November, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1965-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-23T18:33:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/modi-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-on-16-november-1965#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/modi-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-on-16-november-1965"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/modi-sugar-mills-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-sales-tax-u-p-on-16-november-1965#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Modi Sugar Mills Ltd vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P., … on 16 November, 1965"}]},{"@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\/52805","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=52805"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52805\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52805"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52805"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52805"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}