{"id":64882,"date":"2010-10-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-sanchar-nigam-ltd-vs-assistant-commissionr-on-4-october-2010"},"modified":"2015-12-27T07:48:26","modified_gmt":"2015-12-27T02:18:26","slug":"bharath-sanchar-nigam-ltd-vs-assistant-commissionr-on-4-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-sanchar-nigam-ltd-vs-assistant-commissionr-on-4-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs Assistant Commissionr … on 4 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs Assistant Commissionr … on 4 October, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 23286 of 2010(I)\n\n\n\n1. BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR (ASSESSMENT)\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM)\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM\n\n Dated :04\/10\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                    C. K. ABDUL REHIM, J.\n             =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=\n                 W.P.(C) No. 23286 of 2010\n             =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=\n           Dated this the 4th day of October, 2010\n\n                          JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P8 and<\/p>\n
P9 orders of assessment finalized against the petitioner by<\/p>\n
the 1st respondent under the provisions of the Kerala<\/p>\n
General Sales Tax Act (for short KGST Act), pertaining to<\/p>\n
assessment years 2003-’04 and 2004-’05.\n<\/p>\n
       2. On an earlier occasion, assessments with respect to<\/p>\n
the said years were completed by the 2nd respondent,<\/p>\n
exercising powers under section 17D of the KGST Act. By<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 judgment this Court set aside those assessments and<\/p>\n
directed the 2nd respondent\/competent authority to pass<\/p>\n
fresh orders, finding that mandatory procedures prescribed<\/p>\n
under section 17D of the KGST Act as laid down by this<\/p>\n
Court in    Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. V. Asst.<\/p>\n
Commissioner,Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam<\/a> (2009(4) KHC<\/p>\n
819) were not complied with. Thereafter, steps were<\/p>\n
initiated by the 1st respondent to finalize the assessments<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 23286\/2010           2<\/span><\/p>\n
afresh. Proposal notices, Exts.P2 & P3 under section 17(3)<\/p>\n
of the KGST Act were issued. The petitioner submitted<\/p>\n
Ext.P4 request before the 3rd respondent for issuing<\/p>\n
necessary directions to the assessing authority to refrain<\/p>\n
from raising any arbitrary and illegal demand against the<\/p>\n
petitioner and to complete the assessments in a judicious<\/p>\n
manner. The petitioner also submitted Exts.P5 and P6<\/p>\n
before the 1st respondent requesting time for filing reply to<\/p>\n
Exts.P2 and P3. But without giving any reply the 1st<\/p>\n
respondent had completed the assessments and issued<\/p>\n
Exts.P8 and P9 orders, is the grievance of the petitioner.<\/p>\n
       3. There is an effective remedy of statutory appeal<\/p>\n
provided under the KGST Act against the impugned<\/p>\n
assessments. This writ petition is filed without resorting to<\/p>\n
such remedy. Under such circumstances the preliminary<\/p>\n
issue is as to whether there exists any cogent reason to<\/p>\n
entertain this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
       4.    The     petitioner is a  Government    of  India<\/p>\n
undertaking. The 2nd respondent conducted a sitting on<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 23286\/2010         3<\/span><\/p>\n
28-5-2010 and as per the notification published, the<\/p>\n
petitioner was required to produce Books of accounts on<\/p>\n
that day. According to the petitioner, they are having net<\/p>\n
work of offices situated all over the State and accounts<\/p>\n
relating to each unit is being maintained at such offices.<\/p>\n
The petitioner being the major service provider in the State<\/p>\n
having about 58 lakhs number of land line telephone<\/p>\n
connections and more than 5 lakhs number of mobile<\/p>\n
connections, bills for the customers are being generated<\/p>\n
during every month, which will be nearly 30 lakhs in<\/p>\n
number.        Apart from that, records relating to service<\/p>\n
provided to other organizations like Reliance, Airtel, etc. are<\/p>\n
also there.      Therefore the entire accounts will be highly<\/p>\n
voluminous and it is not at all practicable to bring all such<\/p>\n
records maintained at all the units spread all over the State,<\/p>\n
for verification. When the above aspects were pointed out<\/p>\n
before the 2nd respondent and when it was pointed that the<\/p>\n
accounts are truly reflected in the audit report already<\/p>\n
submitted, the matter was assigned to the 1st respondent,<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 23286\/2010        4<\/span><\/p>\n
and on that basis only Exts.P2 and P3 notices were issued.<\/p>\n
     5.      According to the petitioner, the major issue in<\/p>\n
controversy for finalising the assessment was tax sought to<\/p>\n
be levied on income derived from other service providers for<\/p>\n
usage of petitioner’s net work facility, commonly known as<\/p>\n
“inter-connection usage charges”. It was contended by the<\/p>\n
petitioner that there is no transfer of any goods as defined<\/p>\n
under Article 366 and what is being transferred is only a<\/p>\n
right to use the net work facility. Contention is that the<\/p>\n
income received as “inter-connection usage charges” will<\/p>\n
not come within the definition of ‘turnover’ or such<\/p>\n
transaction could not be treated as “deemed sale” as per<\/p>\n
provisions contained in the KGST Act.\n<\/p>\n
       6. In support of the above contentions the petitioner<\/p>\n
is relying on various decisions like Bharat Sanchar Nigam<\/p>\n
Ltd. V. Union of India and others<\/a> ((2006) 14 KTR 115(SC)),<\/p>\n
the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law) V. S.<\/p>\n
Bahuleyan ((1992) 1 KTR 137 (Ker.)), Bank of India V.<\/p>\n
Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section, Calcutta<\/a> ((1987)<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 23286\/2010          5<\/span><\/p>\n
67 STC 1999 (Cal.)) and State Bank of India V. State of<\/p>\n
Andhara Pradesh ((1988) 70 STC 215 (AP)) etc:.<\/p>\n
       7. Sri.S.Anilkumar, learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
petitioner, had placed vehement arguments that since the<\/p>\n
issue involved in the assessment is purely a legal and<\/p>\n
constitutional question, it is not necessary for the petitioner<\/p>\n
to resort to the statutory remedy of appeal. He also<\/p>\n
contended that the assessments were finalized without<\/p>\n
affording proper opportunity to file reply and opportunity to<\/p>\n
substantiate contentions of the petitioner. Hence, the<\/p>\n
impugned orders are per se illegal and opposed to<\/p>\n
principles of natural justice, is the contention.<\/p>\n
        8. On a perusal of Exts.P8 and P9, it is evident that<\/p>\n
when the matter was posted for consideration before the 2nd<\/p>\n
respondent        on   8-5-2010,   the  petitioner  submitted<\/p>\n
explanations, narrating the difference between “inter-<\/p>\n
connection usage charges” and “inter-connection link<\/p>\n
charges”. It is further stated that, a subsequent date was<\/p>\n
fixed for hearing on the basis of promise made by the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 23286\/2010         6<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner to produce all records relating to the relevant<\/p>\n
periods of assessment. But on that date also no records<\/p>\n
were produced. Under such circumstances, specific notice<\/p>\n
was issued by the 2nd respondent requesting the petitioner<\/p>\n
to produce details       of receipts   relating to specific<\/p>\n
transactions which are mentioned under Schedule ‘N’ and<\/p>\n
Schedule ‘O’, which reflected turnover to the tune of<\/p>\n
Rs.2,24,37,04,939\/- and Rs.5,80,18,606\/- respectively. It was<\/p>\n
also mentioned therein that there is a discrepancy between<\/p>\n
the total taxable turnover disclosed in the monthly returns<\/p>\n
and the annual return, but no reconciliation statement was<\/p>\n
seen filed along with the annual return. Further it was<\/p>\n
pointed out that the above said turnover was not seen<\/p>\n
disclosed in the audit report. Hence, through the notices the<\/p>\n
petitioner was intimated about the proposal to reject the<\/p>\n
return and to complete the assessment on a best judgment<\/p>\n
basis. It is mentioned in the impugned orders that on receipt<\/p>\n
of Exts.P2 and P3, the representative of the petitioner<\/p>\n
appeared before the 1st respondent and a hearing was<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 23286\/2010         7<\/span><\/p>\n
conducted. The objections submitted as per Exts.P5 and P6<\/p>\n
were also verified by the 1st respondent.\n<\/p>\n
       9.    On a perusal of the objections submitted, it is<\/p>\n
revealed that the petitioner had mainly expressed their<\/p>\n
difficulty in producing the entire books of accounts. Further,<\/p>\n
the petitioner offered for verification of such records at<\/p>\n
offices of each secondary switching area. It is also noticed<\/p>\n
that in Exts.P5 and P6 a request was made to grant time till<\/p>\n
the     3rd    respondent takes    a  decision   on    Ext.P4<\/p>\n
representation. It is based on Exts.P5 and P6, that<\/p>\n
arguments were advanced that the petitioner was not<\/p>\n
provided with adequate opportunity to file detailed<\/p>\n
objections on the merits of the proposals. But it is revealed<\/p>\n
from Exts.P8 and P9 that the representative of the<\/p>\n
petitioner who appeared before the assessing authority had<\/p>\n
already advanced detailed arguments on the issue relating<\/p>\n
exigibility of tax on the income derived from other service<\/p>\n
providers. Placing reliance on a decision of the Tribunal<\/p>\n
reported in Fascal Ltd. V. CESAT (2007 (8) STT 317) the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 23286\/2010          8<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner raised contention that providing of facility for<\/p>\n
other service providers will not come within the ambit of<\/p>\n
sale. But the assessing authority found that the petitioner is<\/p>\n
receiving charges from other service providers for providing<\/p>\n
usage of infrastructure facility of the petitioner and hence<\/p>\n
there is a sale of the said facility, which will come within the<\/p>\n
meaning of ‘sale’ as defined under the KGST Act. It is<\/p>\n
categorically found that the facility permitted for usage of<\/p>\n
the infrastructure owned by the petitioner, is a deemed sale<\/p>\n
for the purpose of the assessment under the KGST Act,<\/p>\n
because there is a transfer of right to use the goods<\/p>\n
established from the nature of transaction. The 2nd<\/p>\n
respondent also relied on a decision of the Karnataka High<\/p>\n
Court in Anthix Corporation V. Assistant Commissioner of<\/p>\n
Commercial Taxes, Bangalore<\/a> ((2010) 29 VST 308 (Kar.)) in<\/p>\n
support of the above defence.\n<\/p>\n
       10. From the facts narrated in the impugned orders<\/p>\n
as described above, it is clear that the petitioner could able<\/p>\n
to raise all their contentions with respect to the issue<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 23286\/2010         9<\/span><\/p>\n
involved in the assessments. It is clear that there was no<\/p>\n
denial of opportunity for production of any Books of<\/p>\n
Accounts as alleged. From Exts.P8 and P9 it is evident that<\/p>\n
after verifying the audit report and the connected<\/p>\n
statements, the assessing authority had requested only for<\/p>\n
clarifications pertaining to certain specific transactions, for<\/p>\n
which production of all basic accounts was not at all<\/p>\n
necessary. But in spite of the onus being on the petitioner to<\/p>\n
prove that the proposal is contrary to actual facts or figures,<\/p>\n
the petitioner had not produced any documents.<\/p>\n
       11. Under the above mentioned circumstances, it<\/p>\n
cannot be held that there was any patent denial of<\/p>\n
opportunity to the petitioner with respect to filing of<\/p>\n
objections or with respect to production of documents. On<\/p>\n
the other hand, it is evident that major issues involved was<\/p>\n
decided after taking note of all contentions raised by the<\/p>\n
petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner had pointed<\/p>\n
out a decision of this Court in M.S.Jewellery V. Assistant<\/p>\n
Commissioenr (Assessment)<\/a> ((1994)2 KTR 389 (Ker.))<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 23286\/2010        10<\/span><\/p>\n
wherein it is held that when lengthy pre-assessment notices<\/p>\n
are issued raising various complicated issues which require<\/p>\n
detailed analysis, the assessing authority will not be<\/p>\n
justified in passing orders without affording an effective<\/p>\n
opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee. In such<\/p>\n
cases it will amount to violation of principles of natural<\/p>\n
justice and it will render such orders mala fide and void. He<\/p>\n
further placed reliance on another decision of this Court in<\/p>\n
C.K.Sunny V. Addl. Sales Tax Officer-I<\/a> ((2004) 12 KTR 360<\/p>\n
(Ker.)) to emphasise the need of compliance of natural<\/p>\n
justice and to afford opportunity of personal hearing.<\/p>\n
       12. On the facts of the case at hand, as stated above,<\/p>\n
I am of the view that there is no manifest denial of any<\/p>\n
effective opportunity. It is reflected from the impugned<\/p>\n
orders that the petitioner had raised all possible contentions<\/p>\n
before the assessing authority and he was given ample<\/p>\n
opportunity for production of documents. Hence, I am of the<\/p>\n
opinion that the impugned orders does not suffer from any<\/p>\n
non-compliance of principles of natural justice.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 23286\/2010        11<\/span><\/p>\n
       13. Further argument of the petitioner is that the<\/p>\n
issue being a legal question, there is no necessity to exhaust<\/p>\n
the appellate remedy provided under the Statute. The main<\/p>\n
issue upon which there is controversy relates to exigibility<\/p>\n
of tax on the turnover of income derived as usage charge<\/p>\n
from other service providers. It seems that different view<\/p>\n
has been taken in various precedents by the High Court as<\/p>\n
well as the Tribunals. A threadbare analysis of the nature of<\/p>\n
the transactions as well as terms and conditions of the<\/p>\n
agreement with respect to providing such facility, are need<\/p>\n
to be considered. Under the scheme of the Statute, a<\/p>\n
hierarchy of authorities are provided, including the<\/p>\n
appellate Tribunal. Further, revisional power is also<\/p>\n
conferred on this Court from the decisions of the Tribunal.<\/p>\n
Hence, it is clear and evident that the controversial issue<\/p>\n
which depends on various questions of law as well as<\/p>\n
various aspects of facts and circumstances, can evaluated<\/p>\n
by such statutory authorities. Any interference by this Court<\/p>\n
in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 23286\/2010          12<\/span><\/p>\n
India may not be proper and justifiable, under such<\/p>\n
circumstances. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that<\/p>\n
the petitioner need be relegated to the appellate remedy<\/p>\n
available.\n<\/p>\n
       14. However, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner<\/p>\n
is a public sector undertaking, fully owned by the Central<\/p>\n
Government. The disputed tax liability mainly pertains to<\/p>\n
the turnover related to the inter-connection usage charges.<\/p>\n
The liability for payment of tax with respect to such<\/p>\n
turnover is in serious dispute. Hence, I am of the opinion<\/p>\n
that collection of the disputed tax amount can be restrained<\/p>\n
till a decision is taken by the appellate authority, provided<\/p>\n
the petitioner files appeals against Exts. P8 and P9 within a<\/p>\n
short time.\n<\/p>\n
       15.     In the result, the writ petition is dismissed<\/p>\n
without prejudice to rights of the petitioner to approach the<\/p>\n
appellate authority challenging Exts.P8 and P9. It is made<\/p>\n
clear that if the petitioner files appeals before the appellate<\/p>\n
authority within a period of two weeks from today, the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No. 23286\/2010        13<\/span><\/p>\n
appellate authority concerned shall receive such appeals as<\/p>\n
one filed within time and shall proceed to consider and<\/p>\n
dispose of the same in accordance with law, after affording<\/p>\n
an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as<\/p>\n
possible at any rate within a period of three months from<\/p>\n
the date of receipt of such appeals.\n<\/p>\n
       16. It is further directed that the respondents shall<\/p>\n
keep in abeyance collection and recovery of tax in dispute<\/p>\n
till   the appeals are disposed of, on condition of the<\/p>\n
petitioner furnishing security bond for the amount in<\/p>\n
dispute.\n<\/p>\n
       It is made clear that the appellate authority should<\/p>\n
dispose of the appeals independently untrammelled by any<\/p>\n
of the observations contained herein.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                        C. K. ABDUL REHIM,
\n                                        JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
mn.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs Assistant Commissionr … on 4 October, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 23286 of 2010(I) 1. BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. … Petitioner Vs 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR (ASSESSMENT) … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (TRIVANDRUM) For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL […]<\/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-64882","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs Assistant Commissionr ... on 4 October, 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\/bharath-sanchar-nigam-ltd-vs-assistant-commissionr-on-4-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs Assistant Commissionr ... on 4 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-sanchar-nigam-ltd-vs-assistant-commissionr-on-4-october-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=\"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-27T02:18:26+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharath-sanchar-nigam-ltd-vs-assistant-commissionr-on-4-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharath-sanchar-nigam-ltd-vs-assistant-commissionr-on-4-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs Assistant Commissionr … on 4 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-27T02:18:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharath-sanchar-nigam-ltd-vs-assistant-commissionr-on-4-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2214,\"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\\\/bharath-sanchar-nigam-ltd-vs-assistant-commissionr-on-4-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharath-sanchar-nigam-ltd-vs-assistant-commissionr-on-4-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharath-sanchar-nigam-ltd-vs-assistant-commissionr-on-4-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs Assistant Commissionr ... on 4 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-27T02:18:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharath-sanchar-nigam-ltd-vs-assistant-commissionr-on-4-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharath-sanchar-nigam-ltd-vs-assistant-commissionr-on-4-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharath-sanchar-nigam-ltd-vs-assistant-commissionr-on-4-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs Assistant Commissionr … on 4 October, 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":"Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs Assistant Commissionr ... on 4 October, 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\/bharath-sanchar-nigam-ltd-vs-assistant-commissionr-on-4-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs Assistant Commissionr ... on 4 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-sanchar-nigam-ltd-vs-assistant-commissionr-on-4-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-27T02:18:26+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-sanchar-nigam-ltd-vs-assistant-commissionr-on-4-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-sanchar-nigam-ltd-vs-assistant-commissionr-on-4-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs Assistant Commissionr … on 4 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-27T02:18:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-sanchar-nigam-ltd-vs-assistant-commissionr-on-4-october-2010"},"wordCount":2214,"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\/bharath-sanchar-nigam-ltd-vs-assistant-commissionr-on-4-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-sanchar-nigam-ltd-vs-assistant-commissionr-on-4-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-sanchar-nigam-ltd-vs-assistant-commissionr-on-4-october-2010","name":"Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs Assistant Commissionr ... on 4 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-27T02:18:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-sanchar-nigam-ltd-vs-assistant-commissionr-on-4-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-sanchar-nigam-ltd-vs-assistant-commissionr-on-4-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-sanchar-nigam-ltd-vs-assistant-commissionr-on-4-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs Assistant Commissionr … on 4 October, 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\/64882","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=64882"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64882\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64882"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64882"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64882"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}