{"id":60890,"date":"2011-04-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bansal-wire-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-april-2011"},"modified":"2018-02-25T10:44:56","modified_gmt":"2018-02-25T05:14:56","slug":"ms-bansal-wire-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bansal-wire-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Bansal Wire Industries Ltd.& … vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 26 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S Bansal Wire Industries Ltd.& … vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 26 April, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: . M Sharma<\/div>\n
Bench: Mukundakam Sharma, Anil R. Dave<\/div>\n
                                                             REPORTABLE\n\n\n              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n              CIVIL APPEAL NO.  3605  OF 2011\n\n            [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21999\/2010]\n\n\n\n\n\nM\/s. Bansal Wire Industries Ltd. & Anr          ...Appellants\n\n\n\n\n\n                            Versus\n\n\n\n\n\nState of U.P. & Ors.                            ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n                            WITH\n\n\n               CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3606 OF 2011\n\n            [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22499\/2010]\n\n\n                            WITH\n\n\n               CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3607 OF 2011\n\n            [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 22218\/2010]\n\n\n                            WITH\n\n\n               CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3608 OF 2011\n\n            [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23855\/2010]\n\n\n                            WITH\n\n\n               CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3609 OF 2011\n\n            [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23858\/2010]\n\n\n\n\n\n                              1\n\n\n                                        WITH\n\n\n                     CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3610 OF 2011\n\n                 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24023\/2010]\n\n\n\n\n\n                                    JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.\n<\/p>\n
1. Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.    The issue that falls for consideration in these appeals is, as <\/p>\n
      to whether the `stainless  steel  wire’ falls under the category, <\/p>\n
      “tools,   alloys   and   special   steels   of   any   of   the   above <\/p>\n
      categories”   enumerated   in   entry   no.   (ix)   of   clause   (iv)   of <\/p>\n
      Section  14  of the  Central  Sales  Tax Act, 1956 (for short  the <\/p>\n
      “Central   Act”)   and   therefore   the   following   question   emerges <\/p>\n
      for our consideration:-\n<\/p>\n
               “Whether   stainless   steel   wire,   a   product   of   the <\/p>\n
               appellant,   on  a  proper   reading   of  Section   14   of <\/p>\n
               the   Central   Sales   Tax   Act   along   with   the <\/p>\n
               qualifying words `that is to say’ would fall under <\/p>\n
               the   category   “tools,   alloy   and   special   steels   of <\/p>\n
               any   of   the   above   categories”   enumerated   in <\/p>\n
               entry   no.   (ix)   of   clause   (iv)   or   under   entry   no. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               (xv) of same clause (iv)”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
3. In   all   these   appeals   identical   issues   are   involved.   We <\/p>\n
      therefore,   proceed   to   dispose   of   all   these   appeals   by   this <\/p>\n
                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
      common Judgment and Order.  In order to arrive at a finding <\/p>\n
      on   the   issue   raised,   it   will   be   necessary   to   set   out   certain <\/p>\n
      facts leading to filing of the present appeals.\n<\/p>\n
4.    The   appellant   is   a   Public   Limited   Company   incorporated <\/p>\n
      under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the <\/p>\n
      business of manufacture and sales of “stainless steel wires”.\n<\/p>\n
      An assessment order was passed under Rule 41(8) of the UP <\/p>\n
      Trade   Tax   Rules   for   the   assessment   year   1999-2000   under <\/p>\n
      the UP Trade Tax Act, 1948 (for short “the UP Act”) as well as <\/p>\n
      under the Central Act.  As per the said assessment order, the <\/p>\n
      tax   on   sales   of   “stainless  steel  wire”   was   levied   @   4%   and <\/p>\n
      sales covered by Form 3-kh were taxed @ 2%.\n<\/p>\n
5.    The   respondent,   however,   thereafter   held   that   the   sales   of <\/p>\n
      “stainless  steel  wire”   has   wrongly   been  taxed   @   4%   treating <\/p>\n
      the   same   as   a   “declared   commodity”   and   that   in   fact <\/p>\n
      “stainless  steel  wire” is not a declared commodity because it <\/p>\n
      is outside the ambit of “Iron and Steel”, which is a declared <\/p>\n
      commodity under Section 14 of the Central Act.\n<\/p>\n
6. In   view   of   the   satisfaction   arrived   at   by   the   respondent,   a <\/p>\n
      proposal   was   sent   to   the   Additional   Commissioner,   Grade-I, <\/p>\n
                                            3<\/span><\/p>\n
   Trade   Tax,   Ghaziabad   Zone,   Ghaziabad   requesting   him   for <\/p>\n
   permission   to   re-open   the   case   of   the   appellant   for   the <\/p>\n
   assessment year 1999-2000.\n<\/p>\n
7. The Additional Commissioner, Grade-I, Trade Tax, Ghaziabad <\/p>\n
   Zone, Ghaziabad issued a notice dated 22.03.2006 directing <\/p>\n
   the appellant to show cause as to why the permission should <\/p>\n
   not   be   granted   to   the   assessing   authority   for   re-opening   of <\/p>\n
   the case under Section 21(2) of the UP Act.\n<\/p>\n
8. Respondent   No.   3   on   24.3.2006   issued   a   notice   under <\/p>\n
   Section 10-B of the U.P. Act for revising the assessment order <\/p>\n
   passed   for   the   assessment   year   2000-01.   The   appellant <\/p>\n
   states that similar notices for the assessment years 2001-02 <\/p>\n
   and   2002-03   were   also   issued   to   the   appellant   by <\/p>\n
   Respondent No. 3.\n<\/p>\n
9. The   appellant   filed   its   reply   dated   27.3.2006     to   the   notice <\/p>\n
   dated   24.3.2006   and,   inter   alia,   stated   that   “stainless   steel <\/p>\n
   wire” is a declared commodity under clause (iv) of Section 14 <\/p>\n
   of the Central Act, hence in view of Section 15 thereof, no tax <\/p>\n
   can be imposed on the declared commodities in excess of 4%.\n<\/p>\n
   The   appellant   had   also   submitted   identical   replies   to   the <\/p>\n
                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
   notices   relating   to   assessment   years   2001-02   and   2002-03 <\/p>\n
   respectively.\n<\/p>\n
10.After considering the reply as furnished by the appellant, the <\/p>\n
   Additional   Commissioner,   Grade-I,   Trade   Tax,   Ghaziabad <\/p>\n
   Zone,   Ghaziabad   by   its   order   dated   27.03.2006   granted <\/p>\n
   permission   to   the   assessing   authority   to   re-open   the   case <\/p>\n
   under   Section   21(2)   of   the   UP   Act   for   the   assessment   year <\/p>\n
   1999-2000.\n<\/p>\n
11. Being   aggrieved   by   the   issuance   of   the   aforesaid   notice,   the <\/p>\n
   appellant   herein   filed   a   Writ   Petition   before   the   Allahabad <\/p>\n
   High Court, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 770 of <\/p>\n
   2006, wherein, the respondent filed a counter affidavit.   The <\/p>\n
   Allahabad   High   Court,   thereafter   heard   the   counsel <\/p>\n
   appearing   for   the   parties   and   by   its   judgment   and   order <\/p>\n
   dated   21.05.2010   dismissed   the   Writ   Petition   holding   that <\/p>\n
   the “stainless steel wire” is not covered under the item “tools, <\/p>\n
   alloys and special steel”  on entry no. (ix) and, therefore, does <\/p>\n
   not fall under “Iron and Steel” as defined under clause (iv) of <\/p>\n
   Section   14   of  the   Central   Act   and   therefore   the   provision   of <\/p>\n
   Section 15 of the Central Act does not apply.\n<\/p>\n
                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
12.Being   aggrieved   by   the   judgment   and   order   dated <\/p>\n
    21.05.2010 passed by the Allahabad High Court, the present <\/p>\n
    appeals  were   filed   by   the   appellants   on  which   we   heard   the <\/p>\n
    learned counsel appearing for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
13.The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   parties   during   the <\/p>\n
    course of their submissions relied upon various notifications, <\/p>\n
    some of which are required to be extracted at this stage.\n<\/p>\n
14. The   first   reference   that   was   made   was   to   the  notification <\/p>\n
    dated  26.10.1991.    The  aforesaid  notification  was  issued  by <\/p>\n
    respondent   No.   1   in   exercise   of   powers   under   clause   (d)   of <\/p>\n
    sub-section (1) of section 3-A of the U.P. Act, whereby under <\/p>\n
    Item   7,   Sheets   and   Circles   made   wholly   or   principally   of <\/p>\n
    stainless   steel   and   all   remaining   articles   (excluding   wares <\/p>\n
    and   surgical   instruments)   made   wholly   or   principally   of <\/p>\n
    stainless steel were taxable @ 12%.\n<\/p>\n
The   relevant   part   of   the   said   notification   is   extracted   herein <\/p>\n
below:<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\"S.No.       Description of goods              Point of tax    Rate of tax\n\n\n(a)          Sheets and circles made                 M or I              12%\n\n             wholly or principally of\n\n             stainless steel.\n\n\n\n\n\n                                        6<\/span>\n\n\n(b)               All remaining articles                     M or I               12%\n\n                  (excluding wares and surgical\n\n                  instruments) made wholly or\n\n                  principally of stainless steel.\"\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
15.Subsequently   another   notification   dated   23.11.1998   was <\/p>\n
        issued   by   Respondent   No.   1   by   exercising   power   under <\/p>\n
        clause   (d)   of   sub-section   (1)   of   section   3-A   of   the   U.P.   Act, <\/p>\n
        whereby   under   Item   7,   Sheets   and   Circles   made   wholly   or <\/p>\n
        principally   of   stainless   steel   and   all   remaining   articles <\/p>\n
        (excluding   wares   and   surgical   instruments)   made   wholly   or <\/p>\n
        principally   of   stainless   steel   were   taxable   @   15%   and   steel <\/p>\n
        wires   were   sought   to   be   taxed   @   15%   presuming   to   be   an <\/p>\n
        article made of stainless steel.\n<\/p>\n
The   relevant   part   of   the   said   notification   is   extracted   herein <\/p>\n
below:<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\"S.No. Description of goods                           Point of tax         Rate of tax\n\n                                                                           percentage\n\n\n\n(i)        Sheets and circles made                    M or I               15%\n\n           wholly or principally of\n\n           stainless steel.\n\n\n\n(ii)    All remain articles                           M or I               15%\n\n           (excluding wares and\n\n           surgical instruments made\n\n           wholly or principally of\n\n\n\n\n                                              7<\/span>\n\n\n           stainless steel.\"\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
16.Later, on 15.01.2000, Respondent No. 1 issued a notification <\/p>\n
        superseding   the   notifications   dated   26.10.1991   and <\/p>\n
        23.11.1998   respectively,   and   Item   No.   8   of   the   said <\/p>\n
        notification   provided   for   levy   of   tax   @   15%   on   sheets   and <\/p>\n
        circles made wholly or principally of stainless steel and also <\/p>\n
        all   remaining   articles   excluding   ware   and   surgical <\/p>\n
        instruments   made   wholly   or   principally   of   stainless   steel   @ <\/p>\n
        15 %.\n<\/p>\n
The   relevant   part   of   the   said   notification   is   extracted   herein <\/p>\n
below:\n<\/p>\n
“S.No. Description of goods                       Point of tax        Rate of tax<\/p>\n
                                                                      percentage<\/p>\n
8.<\/p>\n
(i)        Sheets and circles made                M or I              15%\n\n           wholly or principally of\n\n           stainless steel.\n\n\n\n(ii)    All remain articles                       M or I              15%\n\n           (excluding wares and\n\n           surgical instruments) made\n\n           wholly or principally of\n\n           stainless steel.\"\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
17. Section  14 (iv) of the Central Act is the relevant provision in <\/p>\n
        the   present   appeals   and   we   therefore   extract   the   relevant <\/p>\n
                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
   portion of Section 14 (iv) of the Central Act and the same is <\/p>\n
   as under: –\n<\/p>\n
      “14.  Certain goods to be of special importance  in <\/p>\n
      inter-State   trade   or   commerce.   –   It   is   hereby <\/p>\n
      declared   that   the   following   goods   are   of   special <\/p>\n
      importance in inter-State trade or commerce, –\n<\/p>\n
                  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<\/p>\n
        (iv) iron and steel, that is to say, –\n<\/p>\n
            (i)   pig   iron   and   caste   iron   including   ingot <\/p>\n
            moulds,   bottom,   plates,   iron   scrap,   caste   iron <\/p>\n
            scrap, runner scrap and iron skull scrap;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (ii) steel semis (ingots, slabs, blooms and billets <\/p>\n
            of all qualities, shapes and sizes);<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (iii)   skull   bars,   tin   bars,   sheet   bars,   hoe-bars <\/p>\n
            and sleeper bars;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
            (iv)   steel   bars   (rounds,   rods,   squares,   flats, <\/p>\n
            octagons   and   hexagons,   plain   and   ribbed   or <\/p>\n
            twisted, in coil form as well as straight lengths);<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (v)   Steel   structurals   (angels,   joists,   channels, <\/p>\n
            tees,   sheet   piling   sections,   Z   sections   or   any <\/p>\n
            other rolled sections);\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
            (vi)   sheets,   hoops,   stripe   and   skelp,   both   black <\/p>\n
            and   galvanized,   hot   and   cold   rolled,   plain   and <\/p>\n
            corrugated,   in   all   qualities,   in   straight   lengths <\/p>\n
            and   in   coil   form,   as   rolled   and   in   riveted <\/p>\n
            condition;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
            (vii)   plates   both   plain   and   chequered   in   all <\/p>\n
            qualities;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
            (viii) discs, rings, forgings, and steel castings;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (ix)   tool,   alloy   and   special   steels   of   any   of   the <\/p>\n
            above categories;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
                                        9<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             (x)   steel   melting   scrap   in   all   forms   including <\/p>\n
             steel skull, turnings and borings;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
             (xi) steel tubes, both welded and seamless, of all <\/p>\n
             diameters and lengths, including tube fittings;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             (xii)   tin-plates,   both   hot  dipped  and   electrolytic <\/p>\n
             and tin free plates;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
             (xiii)   fish   plates   bars,   beaming   plate   barn, <\/p>\n
             crossing   sleeper   bars,   fish   plates,   bearing <\/p>\n
             plates,   crossing   sleepers   and   pressed   steel <\/p>\n
             sleepers, railsheavy and light crane rails;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             (xiv) wheels, tyres, axles and wheel sets;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             (xv)   wire   rods   and   wires-rolled,   drawn, <\/p>\n
             galvanized,   aluminized,   tinned   or   coated   such <\/p>\n
             as by copper;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n             (xvi) defectives, rejects, cuttings or end pieces of <\/p>\n
             any of the above categories.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
18.    Section 15 of the Central Act is also a relevant provision and <\/p>\n
the same is extracted hereunder :-\n<\/p>\n
       “15.  Restrictions and conditions in regard to tax on <\/p>\n
       sale or purchase of declared goods within a State  – <\/p>\n
       Every   sales   tax   law   of   a   State   shall,   insofar   as   it <\/p>\n
       imposes   or   authorises   the   imposition   of   a   tax   on   the <\/p>\n
       sale   or   purchase   of   declared   goods,   be   subject   to   the <\/p>\n
       following restrictions and conditions, namely:- <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       (a) the tax payable under that law in respect of any sale <\/p>\n
       or   purchase   of   such   goods   inside   the   State   shall   not <\/p>\n
       exceed   four   per   cent,   of   the   sale   or   purchase   price <\/p>\n
       thereof,;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n       xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”<\/p>\n
                                       10<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
19.    The  Commissioner of Commercial Taxes  issued  a circular <\/p>\n
on 25.11.2005 to the Joint Commissioner Trade Tax, Ghaziabad <\/p>\n
directing that sale of stainless steel pipe, tubes, sheets shall not <\/p>\n
be taxable as declared goods under Section 14 (iv) of the Central <\/p>\n
Act since stainless steel is an alloy which consists of nickel etc. <\/p>\n
In   view   of  the   said   circular   the   Commissioner   issued   direction <\/p>\n
to the authorities under  him for proceeding under  Sections  21 <\/p>\n
and   10(b)   of   the   U.P.   Act   for   initiating   the   re-assessment <\/p>\n
proceedings for different years.\n<\/p>\n
20.    The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted <\/p>\n
before us that the “stainless steel wire” is one of the species of <\/p>\n
“Iron   and   Steel”   and   therefore   would   fall   within   the   aforesaid <\/p>\n
“declared   commodity”   and   consequently   rate   of   tax   that   is <\/p>\n
leviable   on   the   goods   of   the   appellant   is   4%   as   originally <\/p>\n
assessed by the Department itself.\n<\/p>\n
21.    He   also   submitted   that   the   expression   “Iron   and   Steel”\n<\/p>\n
mentioned   in   clause   (iv)   of   Section   14   of   the   Central   Act   is   a <\/p>\n
genus and “stainless steel wire” being a form of “Iron and Steel”\n<\/p>\n
is   a   specie   thereof   and   therefore   such   “stainless  steel  wire”\n<\/p>\n
which the appellant produces would come within the expression <\/p>\n
                                         11<\/span><\/p>\n
of   entry   no.   (xv)   stating   words   “wire   rods   and   wires-rolled, <\/p>\n
drawn,   galvanized,   aluminized,   tinned   or   coated   such   as   by <\/p>\n
copper”   of   any   kind   of   “Iron   and   Steel”   referring   to   the   main <\/p>\n
expression   of   clause   (iv)   and   that   the   Department   had <\/p>\n
committed   an   error   of   law   in   restricting   the   expression   of <\/p>\n
“stainless steel wire” through entry no. (ix), namely, “tools, alloy <\/p>\n
and special steels of any of the above categories”.\n<\/p>\n
22.    He   also   submitted  that   the   Government   of   India   in   its <\/p>\n
Reference No. F No. 24\/20\/76 ST Department of Revenue and <\/p>\n
Banking dated 17.11.1976 has clarified that stainless steel is a <\/p>\n
type of alloy steel and is, therefore, covered within the definition <\/p>\n
of the term “iron and steel” for the purposes of entry no. (ix) of <\/p>\n
Section 14(iv) of the Central Act. He further submitted that once <\/p>\n
the Central Government has taken a stand, it is not open to the <\/p>\n
authorities of the State Government to take a different view. He <\/p>\n
has   also   referred   to   the   object   and   reason   for   the   amendment <\/p>\n
which is referred at page 1338 of Chaturvedi’s Central Sales Tax <\/p>\n
Act, 1956 Vol. I.\n<\/p>\n
23.    The aforesaid submissions of the counsel appearing for the <\/p>\n
appellants   were   however   refuted   by   the   learned   counsel <\/p>\n
                                        12<\/span><\/p>\n
appearing   for   the   respondent   who   relied   upon   the   expression <\/p>\n
“that is to say” as used in clause (iv) of Section 14 of the Central <\/p>\n
Act to contend that the word `user’ makes the expression “Iron <\/p>\n
and   Steel”   exhaustive   and   restrictive   and   not   an   expansive   or <\/p>\n
extensive.\n<\/p>\n
24.    He  also  referred  to  the  expression  “of  any of the above <\/p>\n
categories” occurring in entry no. (ix) of clause (iv) of Section 14 <\/p>\n
of the Central Act contending inter alia that the said expression <\/p>\n
plays an instrumental role in determining the scope and ambit <\/p>\n
of the aforesaid item.   Relying on the same, he submitted that <\/p>\n
any product of stainless steel is confined within entry nos. (i) to <\/p>\n
(ix) of clause (iv) of Section 14 of the Central Act and it cannot <\/p>\n
be   given   a   wider   meaning   to   include   “stainless  steel  wire”   in <\/p>\n
entry No. (xv) of clause (iv) of Section 14 of the Central Act. He <\/p>\n
specifically   relied   upon   the   decision   of   this   Court   in  State   of <\/p>\n
Tamil Nadu vs. M\/s. Pyare Lal Mehrotra,<\/a> reported in (1976) 1 <\/p>\n
SCC 834.\n<\/p>\n
25.    In the light of aforesaid submissions made by the counsel <\/p>\n
appearing for the parties, we proceed to answer the issue which <\/p>\n
arises for our consideration by recording our reasons therefor.\n<\/p>\n
                                       13<\/span><\/p>\n
26.    In   the   aforesaid   decision   in  Pyare   Lal   Mehrotra  (supra) <\/p>\n
the very word “that is to say”, as per Section 14 of the Central <\/p>\n
Act   was   considered   and   it   was   held   that   originally   expression <\/p>\n
“that is to say” is employed to make clear and fix the meaning of <\/p>\n
what is to be explained or defined and that such words are not <\/p>\n
used, as a rule, to amplify a meaning while removing a possible <\/p>\n
doubt   for   which   purpose   the   word   “includes”   is   generally <\/p>\n
employed.   In the context of Section 14 of the Central Act, this <\/p>\n
Court   in   the   said   decision   held   that   the   expression  “that   is   to <\/p>\n
say”   is   used   in   Section   14  apparently   to   mean   to   exhaustively <\/p>\n
enumerate the kinds of goods in a given list. It was also held in <\/p>\n
the   said   decision   that   the   purpose   of   an   enumeration   in   a <\/p>\n
statute   dealing   with   sales   tax   at   a   single   point   in   a   series   of <\/p>\n
sales   would,   very   naturally,   be   to   indicate   the   types   of   goods <\/p>\n
each of which would constitute a separate  class for a series of <\/p>\n
sales.   In   paragraph   15   of   the   said   Judgment,   this   Court <\/p>\n
observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
       “15. It   appears   to   us   that   the   position   has   been <\/p>\n
       simplified by the amendment of the law, as indicated <\/p>\n
       above,   so   that   each   of   the   categories   falling   under <\/p>\n
       “iron   and   steel”   constitutes   a   new   species   of <\/p>\n
       commercial   commodity   more   clearly   now.   It   follows <\/p>\n
       that when one commercial commodity is transformed <\/p>\n
                                          14<\/span><\/p>\n
       into   another,   it   becomes   a   separate   commodity   for <\/p>\n
       purposes of sales tax.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
27.    Therefore, in view of the position settled by this Court, it is <\/p>\n
clearly established that so far the items as mentioned in clause <\/p>\n
(iv)   of   Section   14   of   the   Central   Act   is   concerned,  each   of   the <\/p>\n
categories   falling   under   “iron   and   steel”   constitutes   a   new <\/p>\n
species   and   each   one   of   them   is   separate   commodity   for   the <\/p>\n
purposes of sales tax.\n<\/p>\n
28.    The expression “of any of the above categories” appearing <\/p>\n
in   entry   Nos.   (ix)   and   (xvi)   of   clause   (iv)   of   Section   14   of   the <\/p>\n
Central   Act   would   indicate   that   they   would   each   be   items <\/p>\n
referred in the  preceding  items. Therefore, even the expression <\/p>\n
“of   any   of   the   above   categories”   in   entry   No.   (ix)   of   clause   (iv) <\/p>\n
would   only   relate   to   steel   and   alloy   produced   for   any   of   the <\/p>\n
materials   mentioned   in   item   nos.   (i)   to   (viii).       Thus   “stainless <\/p>\n
steel  wire” produced by the appellant cannot be read into item <\/p>\n
no.   (xv)   which   reads   as   “wire   rods   and   wires-rolled,   drawn, <\/p>\n
galvanized, aluminized, tinned or coated such as by copper”.\n<\/p>\n
29.    This  Court   in  the  case  of  Pyare  Lal   Mehrotra  (supra),  in <\/p>\n
paragraph 5, observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                                           15<\/span><\/p>\n
       “5.    It   will   be   seen   that   “iron   and   steel”   is   now
\n       divided   into   16   categories   which   clearly   embrace
\n       widely   different   commercial   commodities,   from   mere
\n       scrap   iron   and   leftovers   of   processes   of
\n       manufacturing   to   “wires”   and   “wheels,   tyres,   axles,
\n       and   wheel  sets”.   Some   of  the   enumerated   items   like
\n       “melting   scrap”   or   “tool   alloys”   and   “special   steels”
\n       could serve as raw material out of which other goods
\n       are   made   and   others   are   definitely   varieties   of
\n       manufactured   goods.   If   the   subsequent   amendment
\n       only clarifies  the original  intentions  of Parliament,  it
\n       would   appear   that   Heading   (iv)   in   Section   14,   as
\n       originally   worded,   was   also   meant   to   enumerate
\n       separately   taxable   goods   and   not   just   to   illustrate
\n       what is just one taxable substance:  “iron and steel”.
\n       The   reason   given,   in   the   Statement   of   Objects   and
\n       Reasons   of   the   1972   Act,   for   an   elucidation   of   the
\n       “definition” of iron and steel, was that the “definition”
\n       had   led   to   varying   interpretations   by   assessing
\n       authorities   and   the   courts   so   that   a   comprehensive
\n       list   of   specified   declared   iron   and   steel   goods   would
\n       remove   ambiguity.   The   Select   Committee,   which
\n       recommended   the   amendment,   called   each   specified
\n       category   “a   item   no.”   falling   under   “iron   and   steel”.
\n       Apparently, the intention was to consider each “item
\n       no.” as a separate  taxable commodity for purpose of
\n       sales tax.  Perhaps some items could overlap, but no
\n       difficulty arises in cases before us due to this feature.
\n       As we have pointed out, the statement of reasons for
\n       amendment   spoke   of   Section   14(iv)   as  a   `”definition”
\n       of   “iron   and   steel”.   A   definition   is   expected   to   be
\n       exhaustive. Its very terms may, however, show that it
\n       is   not   meant   to   be   exhaustive.   For   example,   a
\n       purported definition may say that the term sought to
\n       be   defined   “includes”   what   it   specifies,   but,   in   that
\n       case, the definition itself is not complete.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
30.    It   is   thus   clear,   that   if   the   object   of   newly   substituted <\/p>\n
clause (iv) of Section 14 of the Central Act was to make iron and <\/p>\n
steel   taxable   as   one   substance,   the   item   could   have   been <\/p>\n
“Goods   of   iron   and   steel”   or,   to   be   more   clear,   “Iron   and   steel <\/p>\n
irrespective   of   change   of   form   or   shape   or   character   of   goods <\/p>\n
                                          16<\/span><\/p>\n
made out of them”.  The more natural meaning, therefore is that <\/p>\n
each item specified in Section 14(iv) forms a separate species for <\/p>\n
each   series   of   sales.     When   one   commercial   commodity   is,   by <\/p>\n
manufacturing   process   etc.,   transformed   into   another,   it <\/p>\n
becomes   a  separate   commodity   for   sales  tax  purposes.     If  iron <\/p>\n
bars   were   drawn   into   “wire”,   such   wire   shall   be   a   different <\/p>\n
taxable commodity.\n<\/p>\n
31.    Parliament can restrict powers of State Government to tax <\/p>\n
“declared   goods”.     Section   2(c)   of   the   Central   Act   defines <\/p>\n
“declared goods” as those declared under Section 14 of Central <\/p>\n
Act   as   `goods   of   special   importance   in   Inter   State   Trade   or <\/p>\n
Commerce.     Section   14   of   the   Central   Act   gives   a   list   of   such <\/p>\n
goods and Section 15 specifies restrictions on power of States to <\/p>\n
tax such goods.\n<\/p>\n
32.    This   Court   in   the   case   of  Rajasthan   Roller   Flour   Mills <\/p>\n
Assn.  vs.  State of  Rajasthan,<\/a> reported  in 1994  Supp (1)  SCC <\/p>\n
413, observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
        16. …… “that is to say” assigned in Stroud’s Judicial  <\/p>\n
       Dictionary  (Fourth   Edn.)   Vol.   5   at   page   2753   to   the <\/p>\n
       following effect:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       “That   is   to   say.–   (1)   `That   is   to   say’   is   the <\/p>\n
       commencement of an ancillary clause which explains <\/p>\n
       the   meaning   of   the   principal   clause.   It   has   the <\/p>\n
       following properties: (1) it must not be contrary to the <\/p>\n
                                        17<\/span><\/p>\n
       principal   clause;   (2)   it   must   neither   increase   nor <\/p>\n
       diminish   it;   (3)   but   where   the   principal   clause   is <\/p>\n
       general in terms it may restrict it:…..”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       17. ……………..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       “The   quotation,   given   above,   from  Stroud’s   Judicial  <\/p>\n
       Dictionary  shows   that,   ordinarily,   the   expression, <\/p>\n
       `that is to say’ is employed to make clear and fix the <\/p>\n
       meaning of what is to be explained or defined. Such <\/p>\n
       words are not used, as a rule,  to amplify  a meaning <\/p>\n
       while   removing   a   possible   doubt   for   which   purpose <\/p>\n
       the   word   `includes’   is   generally   employed   …   but,   in <\/p>\n
       the   context   of   single   point   sales   tax,   subject   to <\/p>\n
       special   conditions   when   imposed   on   separate <\/p>\n
       categories   of   specified   goods,   the   expression   was <\/p>\n
       apparently   meant   to   exhaustively   enumerate   the <\/p>\n
       kinds   of   goods   in   a   given   list.   The   purpose   of   an <\/p>\n
       enumeration  in a statute dealing with  sales  tax  at a <\/p>\n
       single point in a series of sales would, very naturally, <\/p>\n
       be to indicate the types of goods each of which would <\/p>\n
       constitute   a   separate   class   for   a   series   of   sales. <\/p>\n
       Otherwise,   the   listing   itself   loses   all   meaning   and <\/p>\n
       would be without any purpose behind it.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
33.    It is thus clear, that the language used in entry no. (ix) is <\/p>\n
plain   and   unambiguous   and   that   the   items   which   are <\/p>\n
mentioned there are “tools, alloy and special steel”. By using the <\/p>\n
words   “of  any  of  the   above   categories”   in  entry  Nos.   (ix)  would <\/p>\n
refer   to   entries   (i)   to   (viii)   and   it   cannot   and   does   not   refer   to <\/p>\n
entry   no   (xv).   However,   entry   (xvi)   of   Clause   (iv)   would   be <\/p>\n
included   in   entry   (xvi)   particularly   within   the   expression   now <\/p>\n
therein   any   of   the   aforesaid   categories.   Therefore,   the   specific <\/p>\n
entry “tool, alloy and special steel” being not applicable to entry <\/p>\n
(xv),   the   contention   of   the   counsel   for   the   appellant   has   to   be <\/p>\n
rejected. It is, therefore, held that the stainless steel wire is not <\/p>\n
                                            18<\/span><\/p>\n
covered  within   entry   (ix)   of  clause   (iv)   of   Section   14   of   Central <\/p>\n
Sales Tax Act.\n<\/p>\n
34.    It   is  a  settled  principle   of  law  that  the   words  used  in  the <\/p>\n
section,   rule   or  notification   should   not  be   rendered  redundant <\/p>\n
and   should   be   given   effect   to.     It   is   also   one   of   the   cardinal <\/p>\n
principles   of   interpretation   of   any   statue   that   some   meaning <\/p>\n
must   be   given   to   the   words   used   in   the   section.   Expression <\/p>\n
“Wire rods and wires” which is mentioned in item no. (xv) would <\/p>\n
not   and   cannot   cover   the   expression   “tools,   alloy   and   special <\/p>\n
steels” of entry no. (ix) nor it would refer to the expression “Iron <\/p>\n
and   Steel”   as   each   item   used   in   entry   nos.   (ix)   and   (xv)   are <\/p>\n
independent   items   not   depending   on   each   other   at   all   as   has <\/p>\n
been held in the case of Pyare Lal Mehrotra (supra).\n<\/p>\n
35.    In   arriving   at   the   aforesaid   conclusion,   we   find   support <\/p>\n
from   the   decision   of   this   Court   in  Union   of  India  vs.  Hansoli <\/p>\n
Devi<\/a>  reported   in  (2002)   7   SCC   273  wherein   this   Court   held <\/p>\n
that   it   is   a   cardinal   principle   of   construction   of   a   statute   that <\/p>\n
when the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, the <\/p>\n
court must give effect to the words used in the statute.\n<\/p>\n
                                          19<\/span><\/p>\n
36.    Besides, in a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is <\/p>\n
clearly   said   and   there   is   no   room   for   any   intendment.     In   a <\/p>\n
taxing statute nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied, <\/p>\n
one can only look fairly at the language used.\n<\/p>\n
37.    Therefore,  the  findings  and the  decision  arrived  at by  the <\/p>\n
High   Court   that   stainless   steel   wire   is   not   covered   under   the <\/p>\n
entry   of   “tools,   alloys   and   special   steels”   in   entry   no.   (ix)   and, <\/p>\n
therefore, does not fall under “Iron and Steel” as defined under <\/p>\n
Section 14(iv) of the Central Act have to be upheld. Hence, the <\/p>\n
said   commodity   cannot   be   treated   as   a   declared   commodity <\/p>\n
under Section 14 of the Central Act and provision of Section 15 <\/p>\n
of   the   Central   Act   does   not   apply   to   the   facts   of   the   present <\/p>\n
appeals.\n<\/p>\n
38.    In   our   considered   opinion,   the   findings   arrived   at   by   the <\/p>\n
High   Court   does   not   suffer   from   any   infirmity.     Consequently, <\/p>\n
we find no merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed <\/p>\n
without any order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                               ……………………………………..J<\/p>\n
                                               [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma ]<\/p>\n
                                                  ……………………………………..J<\/p>\n
                                            20<\/span><\/p>\n
                       [ Anil R. Dave ]<\/p>\n
New Delhi,<\/p>\n
April 26, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
                   21<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S Bansal Wire Industries Ltd.& … vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 26 April, 2011 Author: . M Sharma Bench: Mukundakam Sharma, Anil R. Dave REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3605 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21999\/2010] M\/s. Bansal Wire […]<\/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-60890","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Bansal Wire Industries Ltd.& ... vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 26 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bansal-wire-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Bansal Wire Industries Ltd.& ... vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 26 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bansal-wire-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-25T05:14:56+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-bansal-wire-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-bansal-wire-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Bansal Wire Industries Ltd.& … vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 26 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-25T05:14:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-bansal-wire-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3712,\"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\\\/ms-bansal-wire-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-bansal-wire-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-bansal-wire-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-april-2011\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Bansal Wire Industries Ltd.& ... vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 26 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-25T05:14:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-bansal-wire-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-bansal-wire-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-bansal-wire-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Bansal Wire Industries Ltd.& … vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 26 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":"M\/S Bansal Wire Industries Ltd.& ... vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 26 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bansal-wire-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Bansal Wire Industries Ltd.& ... vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 26 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bansal-wire-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-25T05:14:56+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bansal-wire-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bansal-wire-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Bansal Wire Industries Ltd.& … vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 26 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-25T05:14:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bansal-wire-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-april-2011"},"wordCount":3712,"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\/ms-bansal-wire-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bansal-wire-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bansal-wire-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-april-2011","name":"M\/S Bansal Wire Industries Ltd.& ... vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 26 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-25T05:14:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bansal-wire-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bansal-wire-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-bansal-wire-industries-ltd-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-on-26-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Bansal Wire Industries Ltd.& … vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 26 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\/60890","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=60890"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60890\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60890"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60890"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60890"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}