{"id":6748,"date":"2004-04-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-04-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ravi-co-vs-the-asst-commissioner-of-on-28-april-2004"},"modified":"2018-03-01T02:25:32","modified_gmt":"2018-02-28T20:55:32","slug":"ms-ravi-co-vs-the-asst-commissioner-of-on-28-april-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ravi-co-vs-the-asst-commissioner-of-on-28-april-2004","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Ravi &amp; Co vs The Asst. Commissioner Of on 28 April, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M\/S. Ravi &amp; Co vs The Asst. Commissioner Of on 28 April, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 28\/04\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. VENKATACHALAMOORTHY\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA\n\nT.C.No.286 of 2001\nand T.C. Nos. 287 to 293 of 2001\n\n\nM\/s. Ravi &amp; Co.,\nNo.77, Sathy Road,\nErode  638 003.                ..  Appellant in T.C.Nos.286,\n                             287,288,291 &amp; 292 of 2001\n\nM\/s. Rani &amp; Co.,\nNo.77, Sathy Road,\nErode  638 003.        ..  Appellant in T.C.Nos.289,290 &amp; 293 of 2001\n\n-Vs-\n\nThe Asst. Commissioner of\nIncome-tax,\nCircle I(1), Erode.             ..  Respondent in all cases\n\n        Tax Case Appeals arising out of ITA Nos.1576  to  1583\/Mds\/1994  dated\n12.4.2000 at the instance of the Appellant.\n\nFor Appellant  :  Mr.N.  Quadir Hoseyn\n\nFor Respondent :  Mr.K.  Subramanian\n                Senior Standing Counsel(Tax)\n\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>P.K.  MISRA, J<\/p>\n<p>        Appellants  are  partnership  concerns  deriving  income  as dealer in<br \/>\ntimber and tiles.  The dispute relates  to  assessment  years  1986-87  to  19<br \/>\n91-92.  The appellants had initially filed return for the different assessment<br \/>\nyears showing  certain  income.    Subsequently,  in  course of the assessment<br \/>\nproceedings for the assessment years 1991-92 along with notice  under  Section<br \/>\n143(2)  of  the  Income  Tax  Act  (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the<br \/>\nAssessing Officer had issued questionnaire calling for certain details.  Reply<br \/>\nwas filed on 2-3-1992.  Thereafter the appellants filed  revised  returns  for<br \/>\nthe assessment  years  1986-87  to  1991-92  and  paid  tax  accordingly.  The<br \/>\nAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax while accepting the  income  declared  in<br \/>\nthe  revised returns, initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of<br \/>\nthe Act.  The appellants filed  reply  dated  27.4.1993  submitting  that  the<br \/>\nadditional  income had been disclosed voluntarily to get benefit under Section<br \/>\n273A of the Act as per the budget speech in 1991-92.  However,  the  Assistant<br \/>\nCommissioner  of  Income  Tax  passed orders imposing penalty holding that the<br \/>\nrevised returns had not been filed voluntarily and there had been  concealment<br \/>\nof credits  which  were sought to be disclosed in the revised returns.  On the<br \/>\nappeals filed by the appellants, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by a<br \/>\nconsolidated order dated  7.4.1994  allowed  the  appeals  and  cancelled  the<br \/>\npenalty  levied  on  a  finding  that  the  revised  returns  have  been filed<br \/>\nvoluntarily, by following the decision of the Supreme Court  in  168  ITR  705<br \/>\n(SIR SHADILAL SUGAR  AND  GENERAL MILLS LTD.  v.  COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX).<br \/>\nThe aforesaid order was challenged by the Department by filing  appeal  before<br \/>\nthe Appellate  Tribunal.    The Tribunal by order dated 12.4.2000, allowed the<br \/>\nappeals filed  by  the  Department  by  coming  to  the  conclusion  that  the<br \/>\nadditional income offered in the revised returns were disclosed only after the<br \/>\nDepartment  had  taken  steps  and as such, such disclosure was not voluntary.<br \/>\nThe present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging such order  of<br \/>\nthe Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  The assessee has sought to raise the following questions of law :-<br \/>\n         1.    Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the<br \/>\nTribunal was justified in holding that there was concealment  warranting  levy<br \/>\nof penalty under Section 271(1)(c)?\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.   Whether  on  the  facts and in the circumstances of the case, the<br \/>\nTribunal  was  justified  in  concluding  that  the  returns  were  not  filed<br \/>\nvoluntarily  and  hence  there  was  concealment of the amounts offered by the<br \/>\nassessee in the revised returns ?\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as applicable on the relevant<br \/>\ndate is to the following effect :-\n<\/p>\n<p>         271.  (1) If the  Income-tax  Officer  or  the  Appellate  Assistant<br \/>\nCommissioner,  in  the  course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied<br \/>\nthat any person- .  .  .\n<\/p>\n<p>                (c) has concealed the particulars of his income  or  furnished<br \/>\nin accurate particulars of such income,<\/p>\n<p>        he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty, &#8211; .  .  .\n<\/p>\n<p>                (iii)  in  the cases referred to in clause (c), in addition to<br \/>\nany tax payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than,  but  which  shall<br \/>\nnot  exceed  twice,  the  amount  of  tax sought to be evaded by reason of the<br \/>\nconcealment of particulars of his  income  or  the  furnishing  of  inaccurate<br \/>\nparticulars of such income:\n<\/p>\n<p>        Provided  that,  if  in a case falling under clause (c), the amount of<br \/>\nincome (as determined by the Income-tax Officer on assessment) in  respect  of<br \/>\nwhich  the particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been<br \/>\nfurnished exceeds a sum of twenty-five thousand rupees, the Income-tax Officer<br \/>\nshall not issue any direction for  payment  by  way  of  penalty  without  the<br \/>\nprevious approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner :\n<\/p>\n<p>        Explanation  1.-  Where  in  respect  of  any  facts  material  to the<br \/>\ncomputation of the total income of any person under this Act, &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>        (A) such person fails to offer an explanation or offers on explanation<br \/>\nwhich  is  found  by  the  Income-tax  Officer  or  the  Appellate   Assistant<br \/>\nCommissioner to be false, or<br \/>\n        (B)  such  person  offers  an  explanation  which  he  is  not able to<br \/>\nsubstantiate,<\/p>\n<p>        then, the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income  of<br \/>\nsuch  person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this<br \/>\nsub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars<br \/>\nhave been concealed :\n<\/p>\n<p>        Provided that nothing contained in this Explanation shall apply  to  a<br \/>\ncase referred to in clause (B) in respect of any amount added or disallowed as<br \/>\na  result  of the rejection of any explanation offered by such person, if such<br \/>\nexplanation is bona fide and all the facts relating to the same  and  material<br \/>\nto the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him.<\/p>\n<p>                4.   The  Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) while quashing the<br \/>\norder of the Assistant Commissioner had primarily relied upon the decision  of<br \/>\nthe Supreme Court reported in 168 ITR 705 (cited supra).  It has been observed<br \/>\nin  the  subsequent  Supreme  Court  decision  reported  in  251  ITR 99 (K.P.\n<\/p>\n<p>MADHUSUDHANAN v.    COMMISSIONER  OF  INCOME-TAX)  that  by  virtue   of   the<br \/>\nExplanation  to  Section 271, which was added after the aforesaid decision was<br \/>\nrendered, the view taken in 168 ITR 705 was no longer applicable.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  In the present case, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion<br \/>\nthat much before the  revised  returns  were  filed  by  the  appellants,  the<br \/>\nquestionnaire  had  been  issued by the Income-Tax Officer calling for certain<br \/>\ndetails and the appellants filed the  revised  returns  only  when  they  were<br \/>\ncornered.  In other words, the Tribunal found that the revised returns had not<br \/>\nbeen  filed  voluntarily  in a bonafide manner, but with a view to escape from<br \/>\nthe consequences of not filing a proper return.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.  After considering the materials on record, we do not  find<br \/>\nanything substantial in nature to come to a different conclusion.  As a matter<br \/>\nof  fact,  in  the reply to the notice under Section 271(1)(c), the appellants<br \/>\ndid not offer any credible explanation indicating the reasons  for  which  the<br \/>\namount had not been disclosed in the original returns.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any force in the<br \/>\ncontentions raised by the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.   In the result, all the questions are answered against the<br \/>\nassessee.\n<\/p>\n<p>dpk<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Asst.  Commissioner of<br \/>\nIncome-tax, Circle I(1), Erode.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court M\/S. Ravi &amp; Co vs The Asst. Commissioner Of on 28 April, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28\/04\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. VENKATACHALAMOORTHY AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA T.C.No.286 of 2001 and T.C. Nos. 287 to 293 of 2001 M\/s. Ravi &amp; Co., [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6748","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M\/S. Ravi &amp; Co vs The Asst. Commissioner Of on 28 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ravi-co-vs-the-asst-commissioner-of-on-28-april-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Ravi &amp; Co vs The Asst. Commissioner Of on 28 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ravi-co-vs-the-asst-commissioner-of-on-28-april-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-28T20:55:32+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=\"6 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-ravi-co-vs-the-asst-commissioner-of-on-28-april-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ravi-co-vs-the-asst-commissioner-of-on-28-april-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Ravi &amp; Co vs The Asst. Commissioner Of on 28 April, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-28T20:55:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ravi-co-vs-the-asst-commissioner-of-on-28-april-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1046,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ravi-co-vs-the-asst-commissioner-of-on-28-april-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ravi-co-vs-the-asst-commissioner-of-on-28-april-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ravi-co-vs-the-asst-commissioner-of-on-28-april-2004\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Ravi &amp; Co vs The Asst. Commissioner Of on 28 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-28T20:55:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ravi-co-vs-the-asst-commissioner-of-on-28-april-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ravi-co-vs-the-asst-commissioner-of-on-28-april-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-ravi-co-vs-the-asst-commissioner-of-on-28-april-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Ravi &amp; Co vs The Asst. Commissioner Of on 28 April, 2004\"}]},{\"@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. Ravi &amp; Co vs The Asst. Commissioner Of on 28 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ravi-co-vs-the-asst-commissioner-of-on-28-april-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Ravi &amp; Co vs The Asst. Commissioner Of on 28 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ravi-co-vs-the-asst-commissioner-of-on-28-april-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-28T20:55:32+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ravi-co-vs-the-asst-commissioner-of-on-28-april-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ravi-co-vs-the-asst-commissioner-of-on-28-april-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Ravi &amp; Co vs The Asst. Commissioner Of on 28 April, 2004","datePublished":"2004-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-28T20:55:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ravi-co-vs-the-asst-commissioner-of-on-28-april-2004"},"wordCount":1046,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ravi-co-vs-the-asst-commissioner-of-on-28-april-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ravi-co-vs-the-asst-commissioner-of-on-28-april-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ravi-co-vs-the-asst-commissioner-of-on-28-april-2004","name":"M\/S. Ravi &amp; Co vs The Asst. Commissioner Of on 28 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-04-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-28T20:55:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ravi-co-vs-the-asst-commissioner-of-on-28-april-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ravi-co-vs-the-asst-commissioner-of-on-28-april-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-ravi-co-vs-the-asst-commissioner-of-on-28-april-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Ravi &amp; Co vs The Asst. Commissioner Of on 28 April, 2004"}]},{"@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\/6748","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=6748"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6748\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6748"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6748"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6748"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}