{"id":57542,"date":"2010-08-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-newsprints-ltd-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-5-august-2010"},"modified":"2017-09-19T10:52:46","modified_gmt":"2017-09-19T05:22:46","slug":"hindustan-newsprints-ltd-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-5-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-newsprints-ltd-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-5-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Hindustan Newsprints Ltd. vs The Assistant Commissioner on 5 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Hindustan Newsprints Ltd. vs The Assistant Commissioner on 5 August, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 19179 of 2010(V)\n\n\n1. HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINTS LTD., VELLOOR,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KVAT,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(RR\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.KUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON\n\n Dated :05\/08\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J\n                -----------------------------------------------\n                   W.P.C. No.19179 OF 2010\n                  ------------------------------------------\n            Dated this the 5th day of August, 2010\n\n\n                           J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
     Petitioner, a Public Sector Undertaking, is before this Court,<\/p>\n
challenging Ext.P3 assessment finalised by the first respondent, in<\/p>\n
respect of the assessment year 2005-06 u\/s.6(5) of CST Act.<\/p>\n
Prima facie, it may appear that the petitioner is not justified in<\/p>\n
approaching this Court directly, when the petitioner is having<\/p>\n
effective alternate remedy by way of appeal.                   But then, the<\/p>\n
question is whether this Court ‘should’ relegate the petitioner to<\/p>\n
avail the statutory remedy, if the course pursued by the 1st<\/p>\n
respondent is per-se wrong and unjustified.\n<\/p>\n
     2. The grievance projected by petitioner in the writ petition<\/p>\n
as to the course pursued by first respondent, finalysing<\/p>\n
assessment as per Ext.P3, is more involving a question of law,<\/p>\n
rather than a question of fact. It is also stated that, by virtue of<\/p>\n
the course pursued by first respondent, a total liability of<\/p>\n
Rs.15,06,31,421\/- has been thrust upon the petitioner, after<\/p>\n
ignoring the ‘C forms’ produced by petitioner, observing that the<\/p>\n
WPC. No.19179\/2010               2<\/span><\/p>\n
‘C forms’ produced were not in time.\n<\/p>\n
      3. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner is a registered<\/p>\n
dealer under the KVAT and CST Act in the rolls of first respondent<\/p>\n
and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of ‘newsprint’. In the<\/p>\n
course of business, the petitioner manufactured and transported<\/p>\n
the commodity to various places outside the State and was filing<\/p>\n
necessary returns, effecting payment of tax, as prescribed. During<\/p>\n
the assessment year 2005-06, there was no requirement to have<\/p>\n
procured ‘C forms’ by the petitioner, which liability was to be<\/p>\n
satisfied by purchasers themselves and the proceedings have<\/p>\n
undergone a drastic change ever since 2005-06. Purchasers were<\/p>\n
also not aware of the change in the provision of law and as a<\/p>\n
natural consequence, there occurred some delay in the matter of<\/p>\n
obtaining the ‘C’ forms and hence the petitioner could not<\/p>\n
produce the same on time.       It was in the said circumstance,<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 notice of assessment was issued to the petitioner in<\/p>\n
respect of the said assessment year 2005-06.\n<\/p>\n
      4.  On receipt of Ext.P1 notice, the petitioner submitted<\/p>\n
Ext.P2 reply stating as follows:\n<\/p>\n
         “Our’s is a Public Sector undertaking and the total<\/p>\n
         turnover for a particular year is nearly 250-300<\/p>\n
WPC. No.19179\/2010               3<\/span><\/p>\n
         crores. We are paying considerable amount of tax<\/p>\n
         to the department in time without delay. Due to<\/p>\n
         the introduction of new provisions in the CST Act<\/p>\n
         and Rules in respect of the submission of C Form<\/p>\n
         within the next quarter following the quarter ended<\/p>\n
         30th September, 31st December and 31st        March,<\/p>\n
         some of our customers were not aware of the new<\/p>\n
         provisions and hence they were not in a position to<\/p>\n
         issue the C Form in time. Moreover the required C<\/p>\n
         Forms were not available with their respective<\/p>\n
         Commercial Tax Departments in some customer’s<\/p>\n
         case. However, we had managed to collect the C<\/p>\n
         Forms due to our repeated requests to the<\/p>\n
         customers.    The fact of delay in collection of C<\/p>\n
         Forms is not our intentional mistake but beyond<\/p>\n
         our control. This fact was reported to your good<\/p>\n
         office in time.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Considering the above facts, we request you to<\/p>\n
         kindly accept the C Forms and allow us to produce<\/p>\n
         the balance C Forms and request your good self to<\/p>\n
         drop he proposal to impose huge tax and interest<\/p>\n
         for 2005-06.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
After considering the said reply, the first respondent finalised the<\/p>\n
assessment passing Ext.P3 order on 30.3.2010 holding that turn<\/p>\n
over to an extent of Rs.3,24,56,693\/- was not covered by ‘C<\/p>\n
Forms’ and that the ‘C forms’ actually produced by petitioner<\/p>\n
WPC. No.19179\/2010               4<\/span><\/p>\n
were much belated and not acceptable for the purpose of<\/p>\n
assessment. It has been observed in Ext.P3, that by virtue of<\/p>\n
Sec.9(2) of CST Act, read with Rule 12 (7) of the CST<\/p>\n
(Registration and Turn over) Rules, a declaration in C Form shall<\/p>\n
be furnished within three months after the end of the period to<\/p>\n
which the declaration relates. Hence the balance turnover in<\/p>\n
respect of which, C Forms were not produced and the turnover<\/p>\n
for which the ‘C Forms’ were produced belatedly (coming to a<\/p>\n
total Rs.152,26,61,437) were held as liable to be fixed at the<\/p>\n
higher rate of 10%,     fixing the total tax liability of Rs.15,06,<\/p>\n
39,421\/- as per Ext.P3, which is impugned in the writ petition.<\/p>\n
    5. Leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that the course<\/p>\n
pursued by the 1st respondent issuing Ext.P3 is not correct or<\/p>\n
sustainable and much contrary to the statutory provision, without<\/p>\n
any regard to the power to condone delay as to the submission of<\/p>\n
‘C forms’. The petitioner has extracted the provision under Rule<\/p>\n
12(7) as it existed prior to the amendment and the position after<\/p>\n
the amendment, as given in paragraph 7, which is reproduced<\/p>\n
below:<\/p>\n
\n\nWPC. No.19179\/2010                          5<\/span>\n\n\n  Rule12(7) of the CST (R&T) Rules            Rule 12(7) of the CST (R& T) Rules\n  (before amendment)                          (after amendment)\n\n  Rule 12(7). The declaration on Form C       Rule 12(7). The declaration on Form\n<\/pre>\n
  or Form ‘F’ or the certificate in Form I-I’ ‘C’ or Form ‘F’ or he certificate in
\n  or Form ‘F-II’ shall be furnished to the    Form ‘E-I’ or Form ‘E-II’ shall be
\n  prescribed authority up to the time of      furnished to the prescribed authority
\n  assessment     by    the   first  assessing within three months after the end of
\n  authority.                                  the period, to which the declaration or
\n                                              the certificate relates.\n<\/p>\n
  Provided that if the prescribed authority   Provided     that   if  the   prescribed
\n  is satisfied that the person concerned was  authority is satisfied that the person
\n  prevented by sufficient cause from          concerned was prevented by sufficient
\n  furnishing such declaration or certificate  cause from furnishing such declaration
\n  within the aforesaid time, authority may    or certificate within the aforesaid time,
\n  allow such declaration or Certificate to    authority may allow such declaration
\n  be furnished within such further time as    or Certificate to be furnished within
\n  that authority may permit.                  such further time as that authority may
\n                                              permit.\n<\/p>\n
\n  The substantial change that has been brought by the<\/p>\n
amendment is that the time limit for filing the ‘C Form’ has been<\/p>\n
restricted to ‘three months’ after the end of the period to which<\/p>\n
the declaration or the certificate relates. The ‘proviso’ to the<\/p>\n
unamended rule, enabling the concerned authority to condone<\/p>\n
the delay, if satisfied over the reasons to be stated, stands rather<\/p>\n
unaltered; by virtue of which, if sufficient cause is shown for the<\/p>\n
delay, the authority can accept the C forms after condoning the<\/p>\n
delay. This power has not been exercised by the 1st respondent,<\/p>\n
considering the explanation offered from part of the petitioner<\/p>\n
vide Ext.P2, while finalising the assessment and hence is under<\/p>\n
WPC. No.19179\/2010                6<\/span><\/p>\n
challenge. Learned counsel also places reliance on the decision<\/p>\n
rendered by Apex court, State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Hydrabad<\/p>\n
Asbestos Cement Production Ltd. [94 STC 410] (at page 421),<\/p>\n
the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Deputy<\/p>\n
Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Abdul Salam [69 STC 144] and<\/p>\n
also the decision rendered by the Karnataka High Court in A.S.<\/p>\n
Nasiruddin      Vs.    Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in<\/p>\n
Karnataka, Bangalore [94 STC 399] contending that the power is<\/p>\n
very much vested with the authority and the delay can be<\/p>\n
condoned by the same authority, if the reason is satisfactory.<\/p>\n
   6.      Learned Government Pleader appearing for the<\/p>\n
respondents submits that Ext.P3 is a reasoned order and that the<\/p>\n
factual position, that the petitioner did not file any application to<\/p>\n
condone the delay within prescribed period stands rather<\/p>\n
conceded. It was after considering the explanation offered by<\/p>\n
Ext.P2, that the 1st respondent passed Ext.P3, which is supported<\/p>\n
with reasons and hence is not liable to be treated as a non-<\/p>\n
speaking order. It is also pointed out that petitioner, if at all<\/p>\n
aggrieved, has an alternate remedy by way of appeal and that<\/p>\n
interference to this Court is not unwarranted.<\/p>\n
   7.    This Court has already observed that there is no much<\/p>\n
WPC. No.19179\/2010               7<\/span><\/p>\n
factual dispute in the case in hand and that the issue is only with<\/p>\n
regard to the interpretation of the relevant provisions of law and<\/p>\n
as to the exercise of power for condoning the delay in filing the<\/p>\n
‘C forms’ by virtue of the ‘proviso’ to Rule 12(7). With regard to<\/p>\n
the disputed turnover of Rs.3,24,56,695\/-, the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for petitioner submits that the petitioner has already procured<\/p>\n
necessary ‘C forms’, which fact has been adverted to by the 1st<\/p>\n
respondent in the impugned order itself and the only reason<\/p>\n
stated for rejecting the ‘C forms’, is that they were produced<\/p>\n
belatedly.\n<\/p>\n
    8.  The question to be considered is whether the reason<\/p>\n
offered by the first respondent for rejecting the ‘C forms’ as<\/p>\n
belated, is correct or sustainable. The only reason in Ext.P3 is<\/p>\n
that on verification of the assessment records, it was revealed<\/p>\n
that there was no application filed by assessee “during<\/p>\n
corresponding quarter” requesting time for filing ‘C form’.<\/p>\n
Whether the explanation offered by petitioner for the delay vide<\/p>\n
Ext.P2 was correct, sustainable or satisfactory to the assessing<\/p>\n
authority is not seen discussed anywhere in Ext.P3. Similarly,<\/p>\n
there is no reference as to the power vested with the authority to<\/p>\n
have condoned the delay, by virtue of the ‘proviso’ to Rule 12(7)<\/p>\n
WPC. No.19179\/2010               8<\/span><\/p>\n
of the ‘Rules’.\n<\/p>\n
    9. It is relevant to note that, when a substantive provision<\/p>\n
was changed by causing amendment to Rule 12(7), limiting the<\/p>\n
period for submission of C form, to ‘three months’, the law-<\/p>\n
makers left the ‘proviso’ as it was, without any change. This<\/p>\n
shows that, it is a conscious action of the legislators intending to<\/p>\n
have the proviso for condonation of delay to be retained as it<\/p>\n
originally existed. The scope and extent of power in respect of<\/p>\n
condoning the delay, under the ‘unamended’ provision, has<\/p>\n
already been considered by different Courts and also by this<\/p>\n
Court in the decisions cited already, explaining the fact that, it is<\/p>\n
rather a beneficial provision and the purpose of legislation is not<\/p>\n
denial of the benefit.      Applying the very same logic and<\/p>\n
reasoning, it cannot be said that the dictum is not applicable to<\/p>\n
post-amendment scenario. More so, since the ‘proviso’ has not<\/p>\n
undergone any change, even after the amendment.<\/p>\n
    10. As observed hereinbefore, there is no discussion at all in<\/p>\n
Ext.P3 order, as to the power of the assessing authority to<\/p>\n
condone the delay by virtue of the ‘proviso’ to ‘Rule 12(7)’ and<\/p>\n
as such the rejection of the ‘C forms’ furnished by petitioner<\/p>\n
holding that they are belated is not correct or proper. The matter<\/p>\n
WPC. No.19179\/2010               9<\/span><\/p>\n
requires to be reconsidered by the first respondent, with<\/p>\n
reference to the relevant provisions of law, in the light of the<\/p>\n
different judicial precedents and the observations made<\/p>\n
hereinbefore.     Accordingly, Ext.P3 is set aside and the matter is<\/p>\n
remitted to the first respondent to consider the matter afresh and<\/p>\n
to pass appropriate orders, after hearing petitioner, which<\/p>\n
exercise shall be finalised within two months from the date of<\/p>\n
receipt of copy of this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
    The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                 P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
\n                                              JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
Sou.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Hindustan Newsprints Ltd. vs The Assistant Commissioner on 5 August, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 19179 of 2010(V) 1. HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINTS LTD., VELLOOR, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KVAT, … Respondent 2. THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER(RR For Petitioner :SRI.A.KUMAR For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-57542","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHindustan Newsprints Ltd. vs The Assistant Commissioner on 5 August, 2010 - 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\/hindustan-newsprints-ltd-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-5-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hindustan Newsprints Ltd. vs The Assistant Commissioner on 5 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-newsprints-ltd-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-5-august-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-19T05:22:46+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\\\/hindustan-newsprints-ltd-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-5-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-newsprints-ltd-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-5-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hindustan Newsprints Ltd. vs The Assistant Commissioner on 5 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-19T05:22:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-newsprints-ltd-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-5-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1815,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-newsprints-ltd-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-5-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-newsprints-ltd-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-5-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-newsprints-ltd-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-5-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Hindustan Newsprints Ltd. vs The Assistant Commissioner on 5 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-19T05:22:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-newsprints-ltd-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-5-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-newsprints-ltd-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-5-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-newsprints-ltd-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-5-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hindustan Newsprints Ltd. vs The Assistant Commissioner on 5 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Hindustan Newsprints Ltd. vs The Assistant Commissioner on 5 August, 2010 - 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\/hindustan-newsprints-ltd-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-5-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hindustan Newsprints Ltd. vs The Assistant Commissioner on 5 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-newsprints-ltd-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-5-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-19T05:22:46+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\/hindustan-newsprints-ltd-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-5-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-newsprints-ltd-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-5-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hindustan Newsprints Ltd. vs The Assistant Commissioner on 5 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-19T05:22:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-newsprints-ltd-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-5-august-2010"},"wordCount":1815,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-newsprints-ltd-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-5-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-newsprints-ltd-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-5-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-newsprints-ltd-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-5-august-2010","name":"Hindustan Newsprints Ltd. vs The Assistant Commissioner on 5 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-19T05:22:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-newsprints-ltd-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-5-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-newsprints-ltd-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-5-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-newsprints-ltd-vs-the-assistant-commissioner-on-5-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hindustan Newsprints Ltd. vs The Assistant Commissioner on 5 August, 2010"}]},{"@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\/57542","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=57542"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57542\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=57542"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=57542"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=57542"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}