{"id":70209,"date":"1991-09-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1991-09-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-aluminium-company-limited-vs-thane-municipal-corporation-on-25-september-1991"},"modified":"2018-08-13T20:46:09","modified_gmt":"2018-08-13T15:16:09","slug":"indian-aluminium-company-limited-vs-thane-municipal-corporation-on-25-september-1991","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-aluminium-company-limited-vs-thane-municipal-corporation-on-25-september-1991","title":{"rendered":"Indian Aluminium Company Limited vs Thane Municipal Corporation on 25 September, 1991"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Indian Aluminium Company Limited vs Thane Municipal Corporation on 25 September, 1991<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 53, \t\t 1991 SCR Supl. (1) 208<\/div>\n
Author: K J Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Reddy, K. Jayachandra (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nINDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHANE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT25\/09\/1991\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)\nBENCH:\nREDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)\nPANDIAN, S.R. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1992 AIR   53\t\t  1991 SCR  Supl. (1) 208\n 1992 SCC  Supl.  (1) 480 JT 1991 (4)\t 31\n 1991 SCALE  (2)656\n\n\nACT:\n     Maharashtra Municipalities (Octroi) Rules, 1968--Sched-\nule I, Entry No. 77 read with Schedule 11, Part IA, II, Part\nIA,  Rule  4,  Form  14\t ---Octroi---  Payment-Excess\tfrom\n1.10.1982 to 14.4.1987--Failure to submit Form 14 --Claim of\nrefund of octroi made on 8.3.1988 ---Legality of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The  petitioner-Company was engaged in the business  of\nmanufacture of aluminium products and its factory was locat-\ned  at Kalwa in Thane District, obtaining aluminium  as\t raw\nmaterials from its another factory, situated In a  different\nState.\n     With  effect  from\t 1.10.82 the Company  at  Kalwa\t was\nincluded  in the municipal Jurisdiction of Thane, and  prior\nto that date, the Company did not have to pay any octroi  on\nthe raw materials brought into its factory at Kalwa.\n     The respondent - Corporation was levying octroi duty on\nthe imports of aluminium raw materials made by the petition-\ner-Company at the rate of\nfrom 1.10.1982 to 14.4.1987 and from 15.4.87 at the rate  of\n2%.\n     On 18.5.87 the Thane Manufacturer's Association made  a\nrepresentation\tto  the\t respondent-Corporation\t about\t the\nincrease in octroi rates.\n     The   respondent-Corporation   in\tIts   letter   dated\n20.11.1987  pointed out that when raw material specified  In\nEntry  77  in Schedule I to the\t Maharashtra  Municipalities\n(Octroi)  Rules imported for use in the manufacture of\tfin-\nished  goods, It would be subject to the levy of octroi\t not\nexceeding 1.25% and not less.\n     On receipt of this letter, the petitioner-Company\tmade\ndetailed enquiries and was informed that under Rule 4 of the\nRules  the  goods mentioned In Part IA of the  Schedule\t I1,\nwhich  were  imported,\twere liable    to  be  subjected  to\noctroi at a lower rate. The Company also noticed further\n209\nthat Part IA of the Rules provided that the goods  specified\nin Entry 77, when imported by an industrial undertaking\t for\nuse as a raw material for processing within that undertaking\nand  if\t a  declaration in Form 14 was filed,  the  levy  of\noctroi in such cases would not exceed 12.5% and would not be\nless than 0.25%.\n    The petitioner, however, had not filed any-Form 14\tduly\nfilled\tin and according to it, it acted under a mistake  of\nlaw and under the bonafide impression that the octroi levied\non  and recovered by the Corporation at the rate of 1.3%  in\nrespect\t of  the period from 1.10.82 to 14.4.87 and  at\t the\nrate  of  2% from 15.4.87 onwards, represented\tthe  correct\nrate.\n    On 8.3.1988 the petitioner-Company in its letter to\t the\nrespondent-Corporation stated that under a mistake of law it\npaid excess amount and same should be refunded.\n    On 16.5.1988, the respondent-Corporation replied that as\nthe  petitioner-Company had not complied with the  procedure\nspecified  in  Part IA of the Schedule 11 to the  Rules\t for\navailing  such concessional rates and therefore\t the  refund\ncould not be sanctioned.\n    On 19.4.1989 the petitioner-Company claimed a refund  of\ntotal amount of Rs. 13,54,101.79 p. The respondent  rejected\nthe  claim, against which the Company filed a writ  petition\nin the High Court, seeking refund.\n    A  Division Bench of the High Court dismissed  the\twrit\npetition  holding that the concessional rate of octroi\tduty\nwas available only if the declaration in Form 14 was  filled\nwith the octroi authorities.\nQuestioning  the  High\tCourt's Order,\tthis  Special  Leave\nPetition was filed.\n    The\t petitioner-Company  contended\tthat  a\t  procedural\nfailure\t should not disentitle the petitioner-Company,\tpro-\nvided,\tif  otherwise the Company  could  have\tlegitimately\nclaimed.\n    The\t respondent-Corporation submitted that\tthe  conces-\nsional rate would be available only if the raw material\t was\nutilised  by the Company for manufacturing goods within\t the\nindustrial undertaking; that if a declaration had been filed\nin proper Form 14 there could have been a\n210\nscope for verification and in the absence of such a declara-\ntion the question of refunding at this distance of time\t did\nnot arise; and that the concession should have been  availed\nat  the\t time when it was available, and  having  failed  to\navail,\tthe  question  of claiming the same  later  did\t not\narise.\nDismissing the petition, this Court,\n    HELD:.  1.\tA verification at the relevant time  by\t the\noctroi\tauthorities  becomes very much\tnecessary  before  a\nconcession  can\t be given. In the absence of filing  such  a\ndeclaration in the required Form 14, there is no opportunity\nfor  the authorities to verify.\t Therefore  the\t petitioner-\nCompany has definitely failed to fulfil an important obliga-\ntion under the law though procedural. [214 F]\n    2.\tThe verification at the time when the  raw  material\nwas still there is entirely different from a verification at\na belated stage after it has seized to be there. May be that\nthe  raw-material was used in the industrial undertaking  as\nclaimed\t by the petitioner-Company or it may not be. In\t any\nevent  the  failure to file the\t necessary  declaration\t has\nnecessarily  prevented\tthe  authorities to  have  a  proper\nverification. [214 H, 215 A]\n    3.\tA concession has to be availed at the time  when  it\nwas available and in the manner prescribed. [216 D]\n    4. The concession can be granted only if the raw materi-\nal  is used in the industrial undertaking seeking such\tcon-\ncession.  For that a verification was necessary and that  is\nwhy  in the rule itself it is mentioned that  a\t declaration\nhas to be filed in Form 14 facilitating verification.  Fail-\nure  to\t file the same would  automatically  disentitle\t the\nCompany from claiming any such concession. [218 C-D]\n    5.\tIn  the\t instant case the octroi duty  paid  by\t the\npetitioner-Company  would naturally have been passed  on  to\nthe consumers. Therefore, there is no justification to claim\nthe  same  at  this distance of time and the  court  in\t its\ndiscretion can reject the same. [218 G]\n    kirpal  Singh  Duggal v. Municipal\tBoard  Ghaziabad,<\/a>  [\n1968]  3 SCR 551; HMM Limited and another v.  Administrator,\nBangalore  City\t Corporation and another, [1989]4  SCC\t640,\ndistinguished.\nKedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. v. Commercial Tax  Officer,\nCalcutta<\/a>\n211\nand Ors., [1965] 3 SCR 626, followed.\n    Orissa  Cement Ltd. v. State of Orissa & Ors., AIR<\/a>\t1991\nSC 1676, referred to.\n    Dictionary\tof  English Law by Earl\t Jowitt;  Halsbury's\nLaws of England, 4th Edn. Para 198, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Special  Leave  Petition
\n(Civil) No. 6497 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the  Judgment\t and Order dated  18.4.1990  of\t the
\nBombay High Court in W.P. No. 419 of 1990.\n<\/p>\n
    S.\tGanesh,\t Ravinder Narain, P.K. Ram  and\t Ms.  Amrita
\nMitra for the Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
K.K Singhvi and A.K Gupta for the Respondent.
\nThe Order of the Court was delivered by:\n<\/p>\n
    K.\tJAYACHANDRA  REDDY, J.\tThe  petitioner\t Company  is
\nengaged in the business of manufacture of aluminium products
\nand  its  factory  is located at  Kalwa\t in  Thane  District
\n(Maharashtra). The Company obtains aluminium as raw  materi-
\nals for consumption from another factory of theirs  situated
\nin  a different State. With effect from 1.10.82 the  Company
\nat  Kalwa  was\tincluded in the\t municipal  jurisdiction  of
\nThane.\tPrior  to that date the factory was not\t within\t the
\njurisdiction of Thane  Municipality and did not have to\t pay
\nany octroi on the raw materials brought into its factory  at
\nKalwa.\t By a notification dated 23.8.82, the Government  of
\nMaharashtra  constituted  the Municipal Corporation  of\t the
\nCity of Thane and Kalwa was brought within the\tjurisdiction
\nof  the Thane Municipal Corporation, the  respondent  herein
\nand all goods imported into the area of the Thane  Municipal
\nCorporation were subjected to octroi at the rates  mentioned
\nin  Schedule  I to the Maharashtra  Municipalities  (Octroi)
\nRules,\t1968  (‘Rules’ for short). Schedule I  to  the\tsaid
\nRules  contains\t description of various goods  and  articles
\nwhich  were liable to octroi and minimum and  maximum  rates
\nare  prescribed.  Item No.77 in the said Schedule I  to\t the
\nsaid  Rules covered non-ferrous metals, including  aluminium
\nand  Entry provided for the levy of octroi duty on the\talu-
\nminium and_other goods mentioned therein at the minimum rate
\nof 0.5% and at the maximum of 4%. The respondent Corporation
\nwas  levying  octroi duty on the imports  of  aluminium\t raw
\nmaterials made by the
\n212<\/span>
\npetitioner  Company  into  Kalwa at the rate  of  1.3%\tfrom
\n1.10.1982  to 14.4.1987. Then with effect from\t15.4.87\t the
\nrespondent Corporation was levying octroi at the rate of 2%.
\nOn  18.5.87  the  Thane Manufacturer’s\tAssociation  made  a
\nrepresentation\tto  the\t respondent  Corporation  about\t the
\nincrease in octroi rates pointing out that the increase\t was
\nhaving a disastrous effect on their industrial units located
\nwithin\tthe limits Of the Corporation. In reply to the\tsaid
\nrepresentation,\t the  respondent  Corporation  addressed   a
\nletter\tdated  20.11.1987 in which it was  pointed  out\t and
\nclarified  inter  alia that goods specified in Entry  77  in
\nSchedule I to the said Rules, when raw material is  imported
\nfor  use  in the manufacture of finished goods it  would  be
\nsubject\t to the levy of octroi not exceeding 1.25%  and\t not
\nless.  On receipt of this letter the petitioner Company made
\ndetailed enquiries and was informed that under Rule 4 of the
\nsaid  Rules the goods mentioned in Part IA of that  Schedule
\nwhich  were imported by certain industrial undertakings\t are
\nliable to be subjected to octroi at a lower rate. The Compa-
\nny  also noticed further that Part IA of the Rules  provided
\nthat  the  goods specified in Entry 77 when imported  by  an
\nindustrial  undertaking for use as a raw material for  proc-
\nessing within that undertaking and if a declaration in\tForm
\n14 is filed, the levy. octroi in such cases would not exceed
\n1.25%  and  would not be less than  0.25%.  The\t petitioner,
\nhowever,  did not file any such Form 14 duly filled  in\t and
\naccording  to  them they acted under a mistake\tof  law\t and
\nunder the bonafide impression that the octroi levied on\t and
\nrecovered  by  the Corporation at     the rate\tof  1.3%  in
\nrespect\t of  the period from 1.10.82 to 14.4.87 and  at\t the
\nrate  of  2% from 15.4.87 onwards, represented\tthe  correct
\nrate.  The petitioner however having later realised by going
\nthrough\t the  records and the financial accounts  and  other
\ndocuments  which  are  duly audited claimed  refund  of\t the
\nexcess of octroi duty which has been paid by them. On 8.3.88
\nthe petitioner Company addressed a letter to the  respondent
\nCorporation  pointing out that under a mistake of  law\tthey
\npaid  excess amount and therefore the excess amount so\tpaid
\nshould\tbe  refunded. The respondent  Corporation  in  their
\nreply  dated 16.5.88 stated that the petitioner company\t had
\nnot complied with the procedure specified in Part IA of\t the
\nSchedule II to the said Rules for availing such concessional
\nrates  therefore the refund cannot be  sanctioned.  However,
\nthe petitioner Company by their letter dated 19.4.89 claimed
\na refund of total amount of Rs. 13,54,101.79 p. The respond-
\nent again rejected the claim reiterating that the  procedure
\nspecified  in  Part IA of Schedule II to the Rules  was\t not
\ncomplied  with. Being aggrieved the Company filed a writ  of
\nmandamus seeking’ refund. A Division Bench of the High Court
\ndismissed  the. same holding that the concessional  rate  of
\noctroi duty was available only if the declaration in Form 14
\nwas filed with the octroi authorities. Questioning the said
\n213<\/span>
\nOrder, this special Leave Petition has been filed and it  is
\nbeing  disposed of at the admission stage itself  after\t no-
\ntice.\n<\/p>\n
    Most  of  the  facts in this case are  not\tin  dispute.
\nAdmittedly  the aluminium raw material was imported  by\t the
\npetitioner  Company and octroi duty at the normal  rate\t was
\npaid  and  no declaration in Form 14 was filed. It  is\tonly
\nafter the lapse of long time that the petitioner Company has
\nmade  a claim for refund. The learned counsel for the  peti-
\ntioner\tCompany submitted that a procedural  failure  should
\nnot disentitle the petitioner Company provided if  otherwise
\nthe  Company  could have legitimately claimed.\tThe  learned
\ncounsel\t appearing for the respondent Municipal\t Corporation
\nsubmitted that the concessional rate would be available only
\nif the raw material was utilised by the Company for manufac-
\nturing goods within the industrial undertaking. If a  decla-
\nration\thad  been filed in proper Form 14 there\t could\thave
\nbeen  a scope for verification and in the absence of such  a
\ndeclaration  the question of refunding at this\tdistance  of
\ntime does not arise. It is also his further submission\tthat
\nthe concession should have been availed at the time when  it
\nwas available. Having failed to avail the question of claim-
\ning the same later does not arise and consequently no refund
\ncan be claimed.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t amended  Rules came into force in 1970.  Rule\t4(2)
\nprovides  for  payment\toctroi at a lower  rate\t by  certain
\nindustrial undertakings in respect of the goods mentioned in
\nPart  IA of Schedule II to the Rules. Aluminium is at  Entry
\nNo.77. Part I-A reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “PART I – A
\n\t      List of goods on which octroi shah be  payable
\n\t      at  a lower rate by Certain industrial  under-
\n\t      takings.<\/p>\n
\t       (1) All goods  specified in entries 6(c), 35,
\n\t      40,  64, 65, 71, 77 and 86 in Schedule I,\t and
\n\t      khobra  mentioned in entry 25, raw rubber\t and
\n\t      latex mentioned in entry 70 in that  Schedule,
\n\t      when imported by an industrial undertaking for
\n\t      use as raw material for processing within that
\n\t      undertaking  and when declaration\t in  respect
\n\t      thereof  is issued by the undertaking in\tForm
\n\t      14, shall be subject to octroi by any  Council
\n\t      at a rate not exceeding 1.25 per cent and\t not
\n\t      less than 0.25 per cent.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      XX\t\t\t\t\t  XX\n\t      XX\n<\/pre>\n
    It\tcan  be seen from the above rule that to  avail\t the
\nconcession,  a\tdeclaration  in Form 14 has to\tbe  made  in
\nrespect of the raw material
\n214<\/span>
\nimported. Form 14 is as under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “FORM 14
\n\t      (Part I-A and I1 of Schedule II )
\n\t      Declaration to be made by an importer  import-
\n\t      ing  dutiable ‘goods as raw material  for\t his
\n\t      industrial undertaking
\n\t      I\t  ………….\t do hereby declare that\t the
\n\t      goods  in respect of which I  have  separately
\n\t      given  a declaration under rule 14  have\tbeen
\n\t      imported\tby me as raw material to be used  in
\n\t      the  manufacture\tof   ………….   in\t  my
\n\t      industrial undertaking, viz.  (here give\tfull
\n\t      name   and   address   of\t  the\t undertaking
\n\t      )\t ……………..  and I shall not use them
\n\t      for  any other purpose for sale  or  otherwise
\n\t      dispose  them  of to any other party  for\t any
\n\t      other  purpose, except having previously\tpaid
\n\t      the difference between the octroi due on\tsuch
\n\t      goods at ordinary rates and the octroi paid on
\n\t      concessional  rates under Schedule I1  to\t the
\n\t      Maharashtra  Municipalities  (Octroi)   Rules,
\n\t      1968.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    Date ……………..  Signature of the
\n\t      Importer”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    The declaration contemplated in Form 14 is to the effect
\nthat  the  goods imported shall not be used  for  any  other
\npurpose for sale or otherwise etc. It can thus be seen\tthat
\nan incentive is sought to be given to such entrepreneurs  by
\nsuch  concession  if the raw material which is\timported  is
\nalso utilised in the industrial undertaking without  selling
\nor disposing of otherwise. That being the object a verifica-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
tion at the relevant time by the octroi authorities  becomes
\nvery much necessary before a concession can be given. In the
\nabsence\t of filing such a declaration in the  required\tForm
\n14,  there is no opportunity for the authorities to  verify.
\nTherefore  the petitioner Company has definitely  failed  to
\nfulfil\tan important obligation under the law though  proce-
\ndural. The learned counsel, however, submitted that even now
\nthe  authorities can verify the necessary records which\t are
\naudited and submitted to the authorities and find out wheth-
\ner  the material was used in its own undertaking or not.  We
\ndo not think we can accede to this contention. Having failed
\nto file the necessary declaration he cannot now\t turn-around
\nand  ask  the  authorities to make a  verification  of\tsome
\nrecords. The verification at the time when the raw  material
\nwas still there is entirely different from a verification at
\na belated stage after it has ceased to be there. May be that
\nthe  raw-material was used in the industrial undertaking  as
\nclaimed\t by the petitioner Company or it may not be. In\t any
\nevent  the  failure to file the\t necessary  declaration\t has
\nnecessarily prevented the
\n215<\/span>
\nauthorities to have a proper verification.
\n    Shri Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioner  Company
\nrelied on the judgment of this Court in Kirpal Singh  Duggal
\nv. Municipal Board Ghaziabad<\/a> [1968] 3 SCR 551 in support  of
\nhis  submission\t that the non-fulfilment of  procedural\t re-
\nquirement does not bar the claimant from persuing his remedy
\nin  a  court  of law. That was a case  where  the  appellant
\nentered\t into a contract and supplied the goods to the\tGov-
\nernment. The Municipal Board collected toll when the  trucks
\nwere  passing  through the toll barrier. The  appellant\t ob-
\ntained\ta certificate that the transported goods were  meant
\nfor Government work. The appellant claimed exemption on\t the
\nbasis  of  the certificate but not within  time.  The  Court
\nobserved thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “But counsel for the respondent contended that
\n\t      the  rules framed by the Government  regarding
\n\t      the  procedure constituted a condition  prece-
\n\t      dent  to\tthe exercise of the right  to  claim
\n\t      refund  and recourse to the civil court  being
\n\t      conditionally   strict  compliance  with\t the
\n\t      procedure\t prescribed  the  civil\t court\t was
\n\t      incompetent  to  decree the  suit\t unless\t the
\n\t      condition\t was  fulfilled. We  are  unable  to
\n\t      agree  with that contention. The rules  framed
\n\t      by the Government merely set up the  procedure
\n\t      to be followed in preferring an application to
\n\t      the  Municipality for obtaining refund of\t the
\n\t      tax paid. The Municipality is under a statuto-
\n\t      ry  obligation once the procedure followed  is
\n\t      fulfilled,  to grant refund of the  toll.\t The
\n\t      application  for\trefund of the toll  must  be
\n\t      made  within  fifteen days from  the  date  of
\n\t      payment\t\tof  the toll. It has  to  be
\n\t      accompanied by the original receipts. If these
\n\t      procedural requirements are not fulfilled, the
\n\t      Municipality  may decline to refund  the\ttoll
\n\t      and relegate the claimant to a suit. It  would
\n\t      then be open to the party claiming a refund to
\n\t      seek the assistance of the court, and to prove
\n\t      by  evidence which is in law  admissible\tthat
\n\t      the  goods transported by him fell within\t the
\n\t      order  issued under s. 157(3) of the Act.\t The
\n\t      rules framed by the Government relating to the
\n\t      procedure\t to be followed in giving effect  to
\n\t      the  exemptions  on  April 15,  1939,  do\t not
\n\t      purport  to bar the jurisdiction of the  civil
\n\t      court if the procedure is not followed.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Relying  on\t these observations,  Shri  Ganesh,  learned
\ncounsel\t for  the petitioner Company contended that  in\t the
\ninstant\t case though the procedural requirement is not\tful-
\nfilled by filing a declaration in Form 14, still that is not
\na  bar to invoke the jurisdiction of the civil court or\t the
\nHigh
\n216<\/span>
\nCourt  by way of a writ and seek a refund. We are unable  to
\nagree. In Duggal’s case, the appellant, as a matter of fact,
\nobtained certificate but failed to make the application\t for
\nrefund\twithin\ttime. It is in that context this  Court\t ob-
\nserved\tthat the Municipality was under a statutory  obliga-
\ntion  once the procedure followed is fulfilled and if it  is
\nnot fulfilled the Municipality may decline. The granting  of
\na certificate that the appellant used the goods for  Govern-
\nment work made all the difference. But, in the instant case,
\nthe non-fulfillment of the requirement even though procedur-
\nal, has disentitled the petitioner Company because there was
\nno  way to verify whether it was entitled for  such  conces-
\nsion. In HMM Limited and another v. Administrator, Bangalore
\nCity Corporation and another, [1989]4 S C C 640 no doubt the
\nview  taken  in Dugal’s case was confirmed but it  does\t not
\nmake any difference so far as the present case is  concerned
\nfor the reasons stated above. In that case the question\t was
\nwhether\t the goods namely Horlicks was consumed\t within\t the
\ncity or not and there was no dispute as to the quantum which
\nwas  credited pursuant to the directions of the High  Court.
\nHence no further verification was necessary. Therefore these
\ntwo cases are distinguishable.\n<\/p>\n
      However,\ta concession has to be availed at  the\ttime
\nwhen  it  was available and in the  manner  prescribed.\t The
\ncommon\tdictionary meaning of the word “concession”  is\t the
\nact  of\t yielding or conceding as 10 a demand  or  argument,
\nsomething  conceded;  usually implying a demand.  claim,  or
\nrequest, “a thing yielded”, “a grant”.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe  Dictionary of English Law by Earl\tJowitt,\t the
\nmeaning of “concession” is given as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Concession,  a  grant by a central  or  local
\n\t      public  authority to a private person or\tpri-
\n\t      vate persons for the utilisation or working of
\n\t      lands,  an  industry,  a\trailway\t waterworks,
\n\t      etc.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The expressions “rebate” and “concession” in the commer-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
cial  parlance have the same concept. In Halsbury’s Laws  of
\nEngland, 4th edn. Para 198 it is observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Application for rebate. When a rating author-
\n\t      ity  receives an application for a  rebate  it
\n\t      has  a duty to determine whether the  residen-
\n\t      tial occupier is entitled to a rebate and,  if
\n\t      so, the amount to which he is entitled; and it
\n\t      must  request him in writing to  furnish\tsuch
\n\t      information and evidence as it may  reasonably
\n\t      require  as to the persons who reside  in\t the
\n\t      hereditament,  his income, and the  income  of
\n\t      his spouse. Unless
\n\t      217<\/span>
\n\t      the  rating  authority is satisfied  that\t the
\n\t      residential  occupier  has furnished  all\t the
\n\t      information  and evidence it requires,  it  is
\n\t      under no duty to grant a rebate. “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (emphasis supplied)
\n    In\tKedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. v.  Commercial\t Tax
\nOfficer,  Calcutta and Ors.<\/a> [1965] 3 SCR 626, the  appellant
\nwhich  was a public limited Company, sought exemption  under
\nthe  provisions of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act,\t1941
\nin  respect of certain sales but did not produce before\t the
\nOfficer\t the  declaration forms from the  purchaser  dealers
\nrequired to be produced under the proviso to that sub-clause
\ngranting exemption. It was contended on behalf of the appel-
\nlant  that proviso to the sub-clause was only directory\t and
\nthe dealer is not precluded where the proviso is not strict-
\nly  complied with from producing other relevant evidence  to
\nprove that the sales were for the purposes mentioned in\t the
\nsaid sub-clause. The contention on behalf of the  respondent
\nwas that the dealer can claim exemption under the sub-clause
\nbut he must comply strictly with the conditions under  which
\nthe  exemption\tcan be granted.\t Rejecting  the\t appellant’s
\ncontention, this Court held thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Section\t5(2)(a)\t (ii) of the Act  in  effect
\n\t      exempts a specified turnover of a dealer\tfrom
\n\t      sales  tax.  The\tprovision  prescribing\t the
\n\t      exemption\t shall, therefore, be strictly\tcon-
\n\t      strued.  The  substantive\t clause\t gives\t the
\n\t      exemption\t and the proviso qualifies the\tsub-
\n\t      stantive\tclause.\t In effect the proviso\tsays
\n\t      that  part  of  the turnover  of\tthe  selling
\n\t      dealer covered by the terms of sub-clause (ii)
\n\t      will be exempted provided a declaration in the
\n\t      form  prescribed\tis furnished. To put  it  in
\n\t      other words, a dealer cannot get the exemption
\n\t      unless  he  furnishes the declaration  in\t the
\n\t      prescribed form.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It was further held as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “There  is  an understandable reason  for\t the
\n\t      stringency of the provisions. The object of S.
\n\t      5(2)  (a) (ii) of the Act and the\t rules\tmade
\n\t      thereunder  is  self-evident. While  they\t are
\n\t      obviously\t intended  to give  exemption  to  a
\n\t      dealer  in  respect  of  sales  to  registered
\n\t      dealers’\tof  specified classes of  goods,  it
\n\t      seeks  also to prevent fraud and collusion  in
\n\t      an  attempt  to evade tax.  In the  nature  of
\n\t      things,  in view of  innumerable\ttransactions
\n\t      that  may be entered into between dealers,  it
\n\t      will  wellnigh  be impossible for\t the  taxing
\n\t      authorities to ascertain in each case  whether
\n\t      a\t dealer\t has  sold the\tspecified  goods  to
\n\t      another  for  the purposes  mentioned  in\t the
\n\t      section. Therefore,
\n\t      218<\/span>
\n\t      presumably  to  achieve  the  twofold  object,
\n\t      namely,  prevention of fraud and\tfacilitating
\n\t      administrative efficiency, the exemption given
\n\t      is made subject to a condition that the person
\n\t      claiming the exemption shall furnish a  decla-
\n\t      ration form in the manner prescribed under the
\n\t      section.\tThe liberal  construction  suggested
\n\t      will  facilitate the commission of  fraud\t and
\n\t      introduce administrative inconveniences,\tboth
\n\t      of  which\t the provisions of the\tsaid  clause
\n\t      seek to avoid”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    It can thus be seen that the submission namely that\t the
\ndealer,\t even without filing a declaration, can later  prove
\nhis case by producing other evidence, is also rejected. This
\nratio applies on all fours to the case before us. As already
\nmentioned  the\tconcession can be granted only\tif  the\t raw
\nmaterial is used in the industrial undertaking seeking\tsuch
\nconcession.  For that a verification was necessary and\tthat
\nis why in the rule itself it is mentioned that a declaration
\nhas to be filed in Form 14 facilitating verification.  Fail-
\nure  to\t file the same would  automatically  disentitle\t the
\nCompany from claiming any such concession.
\n    In any event the petitioner Company cannot claim conces-
\nsion at this distance as a matter of right. In Orissa Cement
\nLtd.  v. State of Orissa & Ors, A I R<\/a> 1991 SC 1676,  it\t was
\nobserved thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “We  are inclined to accept the view urged  on
\n\t      behalf  of the State that a finding  regarding
\n\t      the invalidity of a levy need not automatical-
\n\t      ly  result in a direction for a refund of\t all
\n\t      collections  thereof made earlier. The  decla-
\n\t      ration regarding the invalidity of a provision
\n\t      and  the\tdetermination  of  the\trelief\tthat
\n\t      should  be granted in consequence thereof\t are
\n\t      two  different  things  and,  in\tthe   latter
\n\t      sphere,  the  Court has, and must be  held  to
\n\t      have,  a certain amount of discretion.  It  is
\n\t      well-settled  proposition that it is  open  to
\n\t      the  Court  to grant, mould  or  restrict\t the
\n\t      relief  in  a manner most appropriate  to\t the
\n\t      situation\t before it in such a way as  to\t ad-
\n\t      vance the interests of justice.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    In\tthe instant case the octroi duty paid by  the  peti-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
tioner\tCompany would naturally have been passed on  to\t the
\nconsumers. Therefore there is no justification to claim\t the
\nsame  at this distance of time and the court in its  discre-
\ntion  can reject the same. For the above reasons, this\tSpe-
\ncial Leave Petition is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.R.\t\t\t\t\t      Petition\tdis-\nmissed.\n219<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Indian Aluminium Company Limited vs Thane Municipal Corporation on 25 September, 1991 Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 53, 1991 SCR Supl. (1) 208 Author: K J Reddy Bench: Reddy, K. Jayachandra (J) PETITIONER: INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED Vs. RESPONDENT: THANE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION DATE OF JUDGMENT25\/09\/1991 BENCH: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) BENCH: REDDY, […]<\/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-70209","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nIndian Aluminium Company Limited vs Thane Municipal Corporation on 25 September, 1991 - 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\/indian-aluminium-company-limited-vs-thane-municipal-corporation-on-25-september-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Indian Aluminium Company Limited vs Thane Municipal Corporation on 25 September, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-aluminium-company-limited-vs-thane-municipal-corporation-on-25-september-1991\" \/>\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=\"1991-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-13T15:16:09+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-aluminium-company-limited-vs-thane-municipal-corporation-on-25-september-1991#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-aluminium-company-limited-vs-thane-municipal-corporation-on-25-september-1991\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Indian Aluminium Company Limited vs Thane Municipal Corporation on 25 September, 1991\",\"datePublished\":\"1991-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-13T15:16:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-aluminium-company-limited-vs-thane-municipal-corporation-on-25-september-1991\"},\"wordCount\":3267,\"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\\\/indian-aluminium-company-limited-vs-thane-municipal-corporation-on-25-september-1991#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-aluminium-company-limited-vs-thane-municipal-corporation-on-25-september-1991\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-aluminium-company-limited-vs-thane-municipal-corporation-on-25-september-1991\",\"name\":\"Indian Aluminium Company Limited vs Thane Municipal Corporation on 25 September, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1991-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-13T15:16:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-aluminium-company-limited-vs-thane-municipal-corporation-on-25-september-1991#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-aluminium-company-limited-vs-thane-municipal-corporation-on-25-september-1991\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/indian-aluminium-company-limited-vs-thane-municipal-corporation-on-25-september-1991#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Indian Aluminium Company Limited vs Thane Municipal Corporation on 25 September, 1991\"}]},{\"@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":"Indian Aluminium Company Limited vs Thane Municipal Corporation on 25 September, 1991 - 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\/indian-aluminium-company-limited-vs-thane-municipal-corporation-on-25-september-1991","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Indian Aluminium Company Limited vs Thane Municipal Corporation on 25 September, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-aluminium-company-limited-vs-thane-municipal-corporation-on-25-september-1991","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1991-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-13T15:16:09+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-aluminium-company-limited-vs-thane-municipal-corporation-on-25-september-1991#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-aluminium-company-limited-vs-thane-municipal-corporation-on-25-september-1991"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Indian Aluminium Company Limited vs Thane Municipal Corporation on 25 September, 1991","datePublished":"1991-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-13T15:16:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-aluminium-company-limited-vs-thane-municipal-corporation-on-25-september-1991"},"wordCount":3267,"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\/indian-aluminium-company-limited-vs-thane-municipal-corporation-on-25-september-1991#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-aluminium-company-limited-vs-thane-municipal-corporation-on-25-september-1991","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-aluminium-company-limited-vs-thane-municipal-corporation-on-25-september-1991","name":"Indian Aluminium Company Limited vs Thane Municipal Corporation on 25 September, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1991-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-13T15:16:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-aluminium-company-limited-vs-thane-municipal-corporation-on-25-september-1991#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-aluminium-company-limited-vs-thane-municipal-corporation-on-25-september-1991"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/indian-aluminium-company-limited-vs-thane-municipal-corporation-on-25-september-1991#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Indian Aluminium Company Limited vs Thane Municipal Corporation on 25 September, 1991"}]},{"@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\/70209","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=70209"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70209\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70209"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70209"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70209"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}