{"id":84632,"date":"2011-11-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-14-november-2011-2"},"modified":"2015-06-28T06:20:19","modified_gmt":"2015-06-28T00:50:19","slug":"commissioner-vs-unknown-on-14-november-2011-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-14-november-2011-2","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs Unknown on 14 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Commissioner vs Unknown on 14 November, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Akil Kureshi, Gokani,<\/div>\n
  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n    \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/1065\/2010\t 7\/ 7\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 1065 of 2010\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER\nOF INCOME TAX-II - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nGUJARAT\nSTATE FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMRS\nMAUNA M BHATT for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMR MANISH J SHAH for Opponent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 06\/09\/2011  \n \nORAL ORDER<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)<\/p>\n
1.0\tLeave
\nto amend.\n<\/p>\n
2.0\tThe
\nRevenue has filed these appeals challenging the judgment of the
\nTribunal dated 29.05.2009 raising following questions for
\nconsideration.\n<\/p>\n
 “[A]
\n Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in
\nconfirming the order passed by CIT(A) in deleting the addition of
\nRs.17,81,300\/- being hire purchase charges?”\n<\/p>\n
   [B]\tWhether
\nthe Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the
\norder passed by CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.11.17 crores
\nbeing interest on KPVs\/ FDRs\/ Debentures?\n<\/p>\n
   [C]\tWhether
\nthe Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the
\norder passed by CIT(A) in deleting the interest received by the
\nassessee in respect of investment of Rs.10,86,69,462\/- (except the
\ninvestment in Govt. securities amounting to Rs.3,07,85,028\/-) under
\nthe interest tax Act?\n<\/p>\n
   [D]\tWhether
\nthe Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the
\norder passed by CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.19,22,96,972\/-
\nmade on lease rent?\n<\/p>\n
   [E]\tWhether
\nthe Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the
\norder passed by CTI(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.12.74 crores
\nbeing the interest on call money?\n<\/p>\n
   [F]
\n Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in
\nconfirming the order passed by CIT(A) in deleting the addition of
\nRs.12,85,657\/- being interest on liquid deposit scheme?\n<\/p>\n
   [G]\tWhether
\nthe Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the
\norder passed by CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.23,54,089\/-
\nbeing brokerage?”\n<\/p>\n
3.0\tWith
\nrespect to questions [A] and [D], learned counsel for the Revenue
\npointed out that such questions are being considered in the case of
\nthis very assessee in Tax Appeal No. 18 of 2007, which was admitted
\non 11.10.2007.\n<\/p>\n
4.0\tConsidering
\nthe above position, this tax appeal is required to be admitted for
\nconsidering the above mentioned questions [A] and [D] as substantial
\nquestions of law.\n<\/p>\n
5.0\tRegarding
\nrest of the questions, for reasons to be recorded hereinafter, we are
\nof the opinion that such questions are not required to be considered.\n<\/p>\n
6.0\tWith
\nrespect to questions [B] and [C], we find that the issues are
\nsquarely covered against the revenue by virtue of the decision of the
\nApex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sahara
\nIndia Savings and Investment Corporation Ltd.<\/a> reported
\nin [2010] 321
\nITR 371(SC). In
\nthe said decision, the Apex Court observed that, for the purpose of
\nInterest-tax Act, 1974, interest on bonds and debentures bought by an
\nassessee as and by way of “investment” would not be
\ncovered under expression “interest on loans and advances”.\n<\/p>\n
7.0\tWe
\nmay notice that in the decision in the case of Commissioner of
\nIncome-Tax vs. Ratnakar Bank Ltd.<\/a> reported in [2008] 306
\nITR 257(SC), while approving the observations made in the case of
\n CIT vs. Corporation Bank<\/a> [2008] 166 Taxman 388 (SC), the Apex
\nCourt has observed that there is a basic difference between loans and
\nadvances on the one hand and investments\/ securities on the other.
\nThe Apex Court eventually held that the interest\/ loan on Government
\nsecurities would not be covered within Section 2(7) of the
\nInterest-tax Act.\n<\/p>\n
8.0\tWith
\nrespect to questions [E], [F] and [G], we find that it would be
\nuseful to discuss these issues jointly. Though the nature of receipts
\ninvolved in each question is somewhat different, attempt on the part
\nof the revenue is to bring such receipts within the purview of the
\nInterest-tax Act, 1974.\n<\/p>\n
9.0\tSection
\n4 of Interest-tax Act provides for charge of tax on every scheduled
\nbank for every assessment year commencing on or after the 1st
\nday of April, 1975, a tax (in this Act referred to as interest-tax)
\nin respect of its chargeable interest of the previous year at
\nspecified rate. Section 2(5) of the Interest-tax Act defines term
\n“chargeable interest” to mean the total amount of
\ninterest referred to in Section 5, and computed in manner laid down
\nin section 6. In turn, Section 5 of the Interest-tax Act, pertains to
\nscope of chargeable interest. Section 6 provides for the mechanism
\nfor computation of chargeable interest.\n<\/p>\n
10.0\tTerm
\n‘interest’ is defined under section 2(7) of the Interest-tax Act is
\nas under:\n<\/p>\n
“interest”\n<\/p>\n
means interest on loans and advances made in India and includes-\n<\/p>\n
(a)
\ncommitment charges on unutilised portion of any credit sanctioned for
\nbeing availed of in India; and <\/p>\n
(b)
\ndiscount on promissory notes and bills of exchange drawn or made in
\nIndia, but does not include-\n<\/p>\n
(i)
\ninterest referred to in sub-section (1B) of Section 42 of the Reserve
\nBank of India Act, 1934;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)
\n discount on treasury bills.”\n<\/p>\n
11.0\tFrom
\nthe above statutory provisions it emerges that to bring any income
\nwithin Section 4 of the Interest-tax Act, such income must be a
\nchargeable interest as provided under Section 5 and as computed under
\nSection 6 of the Act. In turn every chargeable interest must
\nbasically be interest as defined under sub-section (2) of Section 7
\nof the Act.\n<\/p>\n
12.0
\n  In this background the definition of term “interest”
\nassumes significance. Essentially interest is defined to mean
\ninterest on loan and advances made in India and to include certain
\nother receipts such as commitment charges and discount on promissory
\nnotes and bills of exchange drawn or made in India etc.     <\/p>\n
13.0
\nFor the purpose of Section 2(7) of the Interest-tax Act,  there must
\nbe interest on loans and advances. Unless such receipt is covered by
\nany of the inclusion clauses containing under Section 2 of
\nsub-section (7). In the present case, stand of the revenue is that
\nall the three figures referred to in questions (E), (F) and (G) are
\nin the nature of interest on loans and advances made by the assessee
\nduring the previous year relevant to assessment year 2000-01.\n<\/p>\n
14.0\tIn
\nthis respect, the Tribunal rejected the revenue’s contention with
\nrespect to the question (E) observing that the amount relates to
\ninterest received on call money from “Discount and finance
\nHouse of India”,  a company, which is a subsidiary of the
\nassessee. Though the Assessing Officer held that the interest on call
\nmoney is towards deposit with the RBI as an advance, the CIT
\n(Appeals) reversed the Assessing Officer’s view. The Tribunal
\nrejected revenue’s appeal making following observation.\n<\/p>\n
“After
\nconsidering the rival contentions we hold that interest received on
\nthe deposits with RBI cannot be treated as interest received on loans
\nor advances as deposits with RBI are under compulsion and not in the
\nnature of voluntary borrowing by RBI. It is equivalent to interest
\nreceived from RBI on govt. securities and will not fall within the
\nmeaning of expression ‘interest on loan and advances’. Further,
\nfollowing the Rule of consistency, the Department should have
\naccepted the decision of Ld. CIT(A) this year also, as it has
\naccepted in the assessment year 1999-00. As a result, this ground is
\nallowed in favour of the assessee.”\n<\/p>\n
15.0\tWe
\nare of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed no error. The
\ndeposits made by the assessee with the RBI were not in the nature of
\nloan or advances. They were only in the nature of deposits
\nstatutorily required by the assessee to maintain as per the
\ndirectives of Reserve Bank of India. That being the position, we do
\nnot find any question of law arising in this regard.\n<\/p>\n
16.0\tWith
\nrespect to question (F), the same pertains to inclusion of income on
\nliquid deposit scheme for the purpose of charging taxes under the
\nInterest-tax Act, 1974.\n<\/p>\n
17.0\tThe
\nTribunal while deciding this issue in favour of assessee noted that
\nunder the scheme, funds were deposited in inter bank call money on
\ndiscount with “Discount and Finance House of India” being
\nan entity promoted by the RBI. The Tribunal observed that such money
\nis deposited on behalf of the companies and corporates and the
\ninterest is earned on behalf of assessee. It was pointed out that the
\nreceipts are basically in the nature of service charges and the
\ninterest earned thereon is passed on to the lender Government
\ncompany. In effect, therefore, the money was paid on behalf of the
\nGovernment company to Finance House and the interest earned thereon
\nonly is in the nature of service charges. The Tribunal accepted the
\nassessee’s contention that, therefore, such interest cannot be said
\nto be earned on loan and advances.\n<\/p>\n
18.0\tWe
\nare broadly in agreement with the view of the Tribunal. The revenue
\nhas failed to demonstrate that the interest component covered under
\nthe said issue was earned by the assessee on any loan or advances
\nmade.\n<\/p>\n
19.0\tThe
\nquestion [G] pertains to inclusion of brokerage for the purpose of
\nInterest-tax Act. The CIT(Appeals) reversed the Assessing Officer’s
\nview holding that such chargeable interest are not on loan and
\nadvances. The Tribunal in addition to recording that in the previous
\nyear such view of the CIT (Appeals) was not challenged by the revenue
\nalso independently observed that the very description of brokerage
\nwould show that it is not in interest on loan and advances and it is
\nonly other income earned by the assessee.\n<\/p>\n
20.0\tHere
\nalso we are of the opinion that Tribunal correctly assessed the
\nsituation. Nothing has been pointed out by the revenue to suggest
\nthat such income arose out of interest on loans and advances.
\nBasically the income was by way of brokerage charge. That being the
\nposition, the same was not covered under section 2(7) of the
\nInterest-tax Act, 1974.\n<\/p>\n
21.0\t\tIn
\nthe result, Tax appeals are admitted only for considering the
\nfollowing substantial questions of law.\n<\/p>\n
“(A)
\n Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in
\nconfirming the order passed by the CIT(A) holding that the sum of
\nRs.17,81,300 being hire purchase charges are not in the nature of
\ninterest as per the provisions of Interest Tax Act?\n<\/p>\n
(D)\tWhether
\nthe Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the
\norder passed by the CIT (A) in deleting the addition of
\nRs.19,22,96,972\/- on the ground that lease rental income was not
\nsubject to Interest Tax Act?”\n<\/p>\n
\tTo
\nbe heard with Tax Appeal No.18 of 2007.\n<\/p>\n
[AKIL
\nKURESHI, J.]<\/p>\n
[Ms.\n<\/p>\n
SONIA GOKANI, J.]<\/p>\n
Amit\t<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Commissioner vs Unknown on 14 November, 2011 Author: Akil Kureshi, Gokani, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/1065\/2010 7\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 1065 of 2010 ========================================================= COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II – Appellant(s) Versus GUJARAT STATE FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD – Opponent(s) ========================================================= […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-84632","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner vs Unknown on 14 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-14-november-2011-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner vs Unknown on 14 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-14-november-2011-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-28T00:50:19+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-14-november-2011-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-14-november-2011-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs Unknown on 14 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-28T00:50:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-14-november-2011-2\"},\"wordCount\":1686,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-14-november-2011-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-14-november-2011-2\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-14-november-2011-2\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Unknown on 14 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-28T00:50:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-14-november-2011-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-14-november-2011-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-14-november-2011-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Unknown on 14 November, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Commissioner vs Unknown on 14 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-14-november-2011-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs Unknown on 14 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-14-november-2011-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-28T00:50:19+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-14-november-2011-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-14-november-2011-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs Unknown on 14 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-28T00:50:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-14-november-2011-2"},"wordCount":1686,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-14-november-2011-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-14-november-2011-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-14-november-2011-2","name":"Commissioner vs Unknown on 14 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-28T00:50:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-14-november-2011-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-14-november-2011-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-14-november-2011-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs Unknown on 14 November, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/84632","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=84632"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84632\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=84632"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=84632"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=84632"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}