{"id":88999,"date":"2010-02-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-vs-unknown-on-4-february-2010"},"modified":"2015-07-10T12:32:34","modified_gmt":"2015-07-10T07:02:34","slug":"anil-vs-unknown-on-4-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-vs-unknown-on-4-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Anil vs Unknown on 4 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Anil vs Unknown on 4 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.Shukla,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/1570\/2009\t 3\/ 23\tJUDGMENT \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. 1570 of 2009\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nANIL\nPRODUCTS LIMITED - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER\nOF CENTRAL EXCISE AHMEDABAD - II - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nDV PARIKH for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMR YN RAVANI 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 K.A.PUJ\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\tMR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 04\/02\/2010  \n \nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)<\/p>\n
\tThe appellant has filed
\n\tthis Tax Appeal under Section-35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944
\n\tproposing to formulate the following substantial questions of law
\n\tfor determination and consideration of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
 (i)
\n\t\t  Whether or not the Hon’ble Tribunal committed an error of law in
\n\t\tnot passing a reasoned order and in not considering the outline of
\n\t\targuments which deal with various decisions of the Hon’ble Tribunal
\n\t\tas well as the Circulars of the Board directly on issue ?\n<\/p>\n
(ii)
\n\t\t Whether or not the Hon’ble Tribunal erred in law in deciding the
\n\t\tclassification of Calcium Gluconate without even considering
\n\t\tChapter Note 2 to Chapter 30 and without even considering whether
\n\t\tthe product in question falls under Chapter Note 2(i) (a) or
\n\t\tChapter Note 2 (i)(b) ?\n<\/p>\n
(iii)
\n\t\t Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal clearly committed an error of law in
\n\t\trelying upon an earlier ex-parte order passed in the case of
\n\t\tproducts falling under Chapter Note 2(i)(b), when the present case
\n\t\tclearly is a product falling under Chapter Note
\n\t\t2(i)(a) ?\n<\/p>\n
(iv)
\n\t\t Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal clearly committed an error of law in
\n\t\tclassifying the product under Chapter heading 2918.00 as organic
\n\t\tchemical instead of Chapter heading 3003.30 ?\n<\/p>\n
(v)
\n\t\t Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal erred in law in proceeding beyond the
\n\t\tSCN, in as much as, the only charge in the SCN was that the product
\n\t\tin question is required to be converted into injection or tablet
\n\t\tbefore classifying the same as ‘medicament’?\n<\/p>\n
(vi)
\n\t\t Whether the Hon’ble Tribunal erred in law that once the extended
\n\t\tperiod is dropped \/ not attracted then shorter period demand cannot
\n\t\tsubsist ?\n<\/p>\n
(vii)
\n\t\t Whether the Hon’ble tribunal erred in holding that when
\n\t\tclassification under different chapter heads possible favourable
\n\t\tone to assessee be adopted ?\n<\/p>\n
\tThis Court has issued
\n\tnotice on 27.8.2009. Pursuant to the notice Mr.Y.N.Ravani, learned
\n\tStanding Counsel has filed his appearance on behalf of the revenue.\n<\/p>\n
\tHeard Mr.Devang V.\n<\/p>\n
\tParikh, learned advocate appearing for the appellant and
\n\tMr.Y.N.Ravani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe brief facts giving
\n\trise to the present Tax Appeal are that the appellant is carrying on
\n\tbusiness of manufacturing various products which are I.P.grade and
\n\tare used only for pharmaceuticals uses. One of such products which
\n\tis under dispute is Calcium Gluconate I.P. This product is being
\n\tmanufactured by the appellant under the drug license. This product
\n\thas therapeutic and prophylactic value. The appellant was filling
\n\tForm-II as required for non-scheduled drugs under the Drug (Price
\n\tControl) Order. The fact that the product is of I.P.grade, is
\n\tadmitted even in the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of
\n\tCentral Excise, who in his first order referred to the Indian
\n\tPharmacopoeia Rules and held that it is manufactured in accordance
\n\twith the specifications and standards laid down therein. The
\n\tmajority of this product is sold to manufacturers of formulations.
\n\tThese manufacturers are doing the activity of converting calcium
\n\tgluconate into tablet or into injectable form. The only active
\n\tingredient in such a medicine is the calcium gluconate.\n<\/p>\n
\tA dispute arose with
\n\tregard to the classification of the said product. The appellant
\n\tassessee claimed this product as a medicament, whereas the
\n\tdepartment sought to classify the same as organic chemical. The fact
\n\tthat the product is put to therapeutic and prophylactic uses and the
\n\tfact that majority of the sales are to persons who manufacture
\n\tinjections and tablets therefrom was not disputed even in the show
\n\tcause notice dated 28.8.1987.  The Commissioner of Central Excise
\n\tpassed an order-in-original on 28.9.1998 holding that this product
\n\tis not medicament but organic chemical and it does not fall under
\n\tTariff heading 3003.30 (medicament) but falls under Tariff heading
\n\t2918.00 (organic chemicals).\n<\/p>\n
\tBeing aggrieved by the
\n\torder of the Central Excise the appellant preferred an Appeal before
\n\tthe Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order dated 5.1.2004 remanded
\n\tthe matter to the Commissioner with certain directions. On remand
\n\tagain the Commissioner passed his order on 24.1.2006 upholding the
\n\tclassification of the product as canvassed by the Revenue. Being
\n\tfurther aggrieved by the said order the appellant preferred an
\n\tAppeal to the Tribunal. It is the case of the appellant that
\n\tdetailed submissions were made to the Tribunal and detailed outline
\n\tof argument was also filed before the Tribunal. Without considering
\n\tthis submission which go to the very root of the matter, the
\n\tTribunal passed an order after four months on 22.6.2009 and
\n\tdismissed the Appeal filed by the appellant. It is this order which
\n\tis under challenge in the present Tax Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.Devang Parikh, learned
\n\tadvocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the impugned
\n\torder is ex-facie non-reasoned and non-speaking order. It fails to
\n\tdeal with the submissions raised before the Tribunal in their true
\n\tperspective. There is settled legal position by now that a
\n\tnon-speaking or non-reasoned order cannot be sustained under any
\n\tcircumstances. He has further submitted that issue with regard to
\n\tthe classification of product as a medicament or in its base
\n\tcategory as an organic chemical is answered by the provisions of the
\n\tCentral Excise Tariff Act itself. There are lot of products which
\n\thave primarily of therapeutic use but they would also qualify for
\n\tclassification as organic chemical. In this context, the Central
\n\tExcise Tariff Act itself provides a complete answer. He has further
\n\tsubmitted that for classifying the product as a pharmaceuticals
\n\tproduct under Chapter 30, one has to look at Chapter Note.2 which
\n\tcontains the specific definition of ‘medicament’. It states that
\n\t‘medicaments’ means goods (other than foods or beverages such as
\n\tdietic, diabetic or fortified foods, tonic beverages) not falling
\n\twithin heading No.30.02 or 30.04 which are either (a) products
\n\tcomprising two or more constituents which have been mixed or
\n\tcompounded together for therapeutic or prophylactic uses (b) unmixed
\n\tproducts suitable for such uses put up in measured doses or in
\n\tpackings for retail sale or for use in hospitals. He has submitted
\n\tthat on the basis of this definition it is obvious that a product
\n\tcomprising of two or more constituents which have been mixed or
\n\tcompounded for therapeutic and prophylactic uses would be
\n\tclassifiable as medicament. The product need not be put in a state
\n\tas to be directly administered as medicine. If these were the
\n\tintent, the Chapter note would have become wholly unnecessary, and
\n\tit would only have read that the product which is sold in the market
\n\tas a medicament should be classified as a medicament. He has,
\n\ttherefore, submitted that the product falling under Chapter
\n\tNote.2(i)(a) need not be a product which is directly to be
\n\tadministered to a patient. It thus covers products which are
\n\trecognized as  bulk drug .  These products, out of which the
\n\tmedicaments are made, can be directly administered to a patient.
\n\tThus undoubtedly such bulk drugs are made for their therapeutic and
\n\tprophylactic uses. He has further submitted that Central Excise
\n\tTariff provides that if the intent is to use the product for
\n\ttherapeutic and prophylactic uses and the manufacturer does mixing
\n\tor compounding two constituents for these purposes, then such a
\n\tproduct would classify as medicament.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.Parikh further
\n\tsubmitted that Part (b) of the definition refers to unmixed product.
\n\tWith regard to such unmixed product, it is required that unmixed
\n\tproduct which are basically organic chemicals, must be put up in
\n\tmeasured dosages or packed in such a way to be fit for medical use
\n\tdirectly, before they can be classified as ‘medicaments’. Thus, the
\n\tneed for the product to be directly administrable to a patient is
\n\tnecessary only in the case of unmixed product and certainly not in
\n\tthe case of a product which consists of two constituents which are
\n\tput together for therapeutic or prophylactic uses. He has,
\n\ttherefore, submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate this
\n\tclear language of the chapter note. The Tribunal has further failed
\n\tto appreciate that even the show cause notice itself admits that the
\n\tproduct has therapeutic and prophylactic uses. The only case made in
\n\tthe show cause notice was that, Calcium Gluconate is yet to be
\n\tconverted into injection or tablet and unless it is in tablet or
\n\tinjection form irrespective of any change in composition or content
\n\tof the product, it cannot be classified as a ‘medicament’.  He has
\n\tsubmitted that this very perception is ex-facie opposed to the
\n\tdefinition of ‘medicament’ as contained in the chapter note No.2 of
\n\tChapter 30. Mr.Parikh relies on the decision of the Apex Court in
\n\tthe case of  State of Haryana Vs. Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd.,
\n\treported in 2004 (178) ELT, 13
\n\twherein it is held that the words  for use  must be read as
\n\t intended for use  and not  actually used . He has further
\n\tsubmitted that when the product made is of I.P.grade, and it
\n\tsatisfies the requirement of Drug Rules, as held by the
\n\tCommissioner, and when it is made under a Drug License, and
\n\tnecessary forms under the Drugs (Price Control) Order are also
\n\tsubmitted, in that case it can certainly be said that the product
\n\tis being made for therapeutic and prophylactic use. He has further
\n\tsubmitted that this Chapter note -2 of Chapter 30 has been
\n\tinterpreted by the tribunal itself in various cases. In two of the
\n\tcases the Tribunal clarified the proposition of classification. In
\n\tthe case of  East India Pharmaceutical Works
\n\tLtd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Bolpur, 2003 (154) ELT 527,
\n\tit was held that the need to pack the same for ready use is only
\n\trequired in the case of a single component product falling under
\n\tChapter note 2 (i)(b). In the case of  BECOAT vs.
\n\tCommissioner of Central Excise, Cochin,
\n\tit was held that if a product comprises of two or more constituents,
\n\tit need not be put   up in measured dosages or packed for retail
\n\tsale. Even this issue or manner of classification is settled by a
\n\tCircular issued by the Government being Circular No.13\/89 dated
\n\t21.2.1989 which says that a product made of two constituents having
\n\ttherapeutic
\n\tand prophylactic use need not be put in retail packs so as to render
\n\tit directly usable. He has, therefore, submitted that despite this
\n\tclear position as per the provisions of the Tariff Act and the
\n\tjudgments of the Tribunal, this issue was not at all considered in
\n\tthis light and without going into this basic issue the Tribunal held
\n\tthat the product in question is classifiable under Chapter 29.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.Parikh
\n\tfurther submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in
\n\tholding that the product in question is not a medicament. For
\n\tarriving at this conclusion the Tribunal relied on the decision in
\n\tthe case of  Shanpur Industries Vs. Commissioner
\n\tof Customs & Excise, reported in 2000 (119) ELT 416.
\n\tThe Tribunal has, however, not considered the fact that the said
\n\tdecision was not only an ex-parte but various other products were
\n\tpacked for classification together
\n\tand it was presumed that the case fell under Chapter note 2(i)(b)
\n\tand not under 2(i)(a). He has further submitted that a reference to
\n\tthe statement of the person concerned with Shanpur Industries is
\n\thighly irrelevant in as much as his statement was taken in 1997,
\n\teven prior to the Tribunal’s own decision in that case. In any case,
\n\tall these aspects which go to the very root of the matter and hence
\n\tthe sole reliance on the decision of  Shanpur
\n\tIndustries (Supra)
\n\tis wholly unjustified. He has, therefore, submitted that the
\n\tsubstantial questions of law do arise out of the order of the
\n\tTribunal and since the notice is issued by this Court calling upon
\n\tthe department to make its stand clear, appropriate order may be
\n\tpassed either accepting the Appeal in toto or at the most remanding
\n\tthe matter back to the Tribunal to decide the Appeal afresh in light
\n\tof the submissions made by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
\tY. N.Ravani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue, at
\n\tthe outset raised a preliminary issue and submitted that this Appeal
\n\titself is not maintainable. When the issue regarding classification
\n\tis involved Appeal lies to the Apex Court and not to this Court.  He
\n\thas, therefore, submitted that this Appeal should be dismissed only
\n\ton this short ground. Even with regard to other submissions made on
\n\tbehalf of the appellant, Mr. Y. N.Ravani has submitted that there is
\n\tno substance in the arguments canvassed by Mr.Parikh that the
\n\tTribunal has not considered all the issues raised before it. He has
\n\tsubmitted that the Tribunal has referred to various submissions made
\n\ton behalf of the appellant before it. The Tribunal has also
\n\tconsidered the submissions made on behalf of the Revenue. The
\n\tTribunal has referred to the submissions made by the learned
\n\tDepartmental Representative and documents which inter alia includes
\n\topinion of Shri A. Venkatasubramanian, Senior Executive and
\n\tProduction Incharge who admitted that calcium gluconate manufactured
\n\tby them was for industrial use and sold in unit quantity of 25 Kgs.
\n\tShri D.K.J.Padia of M\/s. Bhakthi Pharma engaged in trading of bulk
\n\tdrugs chemicals had stated that calcium gluconate IP in powder from
\n\twas not a medicament but a chemical compound. Shri Nilesh Bhupendra
\n\tShah, Manager of M\/s. Shanpur Industries, had stated that they are
\n\tmanufacturing calcium gluconate IP and classifying the same under
\n\tsub heading 2918.00. Shri Maheshbhai M. Mehta Partner of M\/s.
\n\tDexoline Pharmaceuticals Ltd., has said that they were engaged in
\n\tthe manufacture of IV Fluids and they were using calcium gluconate
\n\tas raw material. He has also stated that calcium gluconate IP
\n\treceived by them in powder form was nothing but an organic chemical
\n\tcapable of being used as bulk drugs. Shri Ravindra Natwarlal Shah,
\n\tDirector
\n\tof M\/s. Comet Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., also stated that calcium
\n\tgluconate IP in powder form was a pure organic chemical and a raw
\n\tmaterial for manufacture of medicaments. The Tribunal has,
\n\tthereafter, referred to the decision of Shanpur Industries (Supra)
\n\twherein it was held that calcium gluconate is classifiable under
\n\tCETH 2918.00. The Tribunal, thereafter, observed that for deciding
\n\tclassification of a product, recourse should not be had to be a
\n\tscientific or technical meaning of terms and expressions but to
\n\ttheir popular meaning as attached to it by persons dealing with that
\n\tproduct. While applying from common parlance test also calcium
\n\tgluconate is classifiable under CETH 2918.00.  The Tribunal has also
\n\treferred to the new Central Excise Tariff introduced with effect
\n\tfrom 28.2.2005, calcium gluconate appears under sub-heading
\n\t2918.1610.\n<\/p>\n
\t After referring to the
\n\targuments of both the sides the Tribunal ultimately came to the
\n\tconclusion that the decision in the case of Shanpur Industries was
\n\trendered considering the products as calcium gluconate only. In that
\n\tcase also the decision was rendered considering that the product was
\n\tcovered by the very Chapter notes. Further, the Manager of the very
\n\tsame Shanpur Industries, has stated that they were classifying the
\n\tproduct under CETH 2918.00 only.  The Tribunal has also referred the
\n\tother decisions and observed that those decisions are
\n\tdistinguishable on facts. Mr.Ravani has, therefore, submitted that
\n\tthere is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal and the
\n\tAppeal deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe
\n\thave considered the rival submissions made by the learned advocates
\n\tappearing for the parties. We have also gone through the impugned
\n\torder of the Tribunal as well as all other
\n\tdocuments produced before the Court. Dealing with the preliminary
\n\tobjection raised by Mr.Ravani against the maintainability of this
\n\tAppeal, we are of the view that this objection would have held good
\n\tif we would have decided the issue regarding the classification in
\n\tthe present Tax Appeal. However, the bare perusal of the questions
\n\tframed by the appellant would clearly indicate that the main
\n\tgrievance of the appellant is about the non-speaking and
\n\tnon-reasoned order passed by the Tribunal. The appellant’s other
\n\tgrievance is that despite various submissions were made and several
\n\tjudgments were relied upon by the appellant, the same were not
\n\tconsidered in their true perspective and the Tribunal has merely
\n\trelied on the decision of  Shanpur Industries
\n\t(Supra)
\n\twhich was an exparte decision and while deciding the said matter,
\n\tthe Tribunal had not an advantage of considering the submissions
\n\tthat may be made on behalf of the assessee.\n<\/p>\n
\t If we concentrate only on this question leaving aside the question
\n\tregarding classification of the appellant’s product, we are of the
\n\tview that this Tax Appeal is certainly maintainable before this
\n\tCourt. Once we take this view that this Appeal can be entertained
\n\tonly on this limited aspect there is no hesitation on our part to
\n\thold that the Tribunal has not considered all the submissions of the
\n\tappellant that were made before it. Mere reproduction of submissions
\n\tin the body of the order is not enough.  The finding of the deciding
\n\tauthority on these submissions is equally necessary. Mere reliance
\n\ton an earlier decision, that too, when it was decided exparte, is
\n\talso not sufficient to take any decision one way or the other.
\n\tDespite the fact that the submission was made to the effect that the
\n\tsaid decision is not applicable to the facts of the case and the
\n\treal controversy was not highlighted in that decision, the Tribunal
\n\thas
\n\tnot considered this aspect. As a matter of fact, if we peruse the
\n\torder passed by the Tribunal in the case of Shanpur Industries it
\n\treveals that the appellant sought classification of ten products
\n\tunder Sub heading 3003.30, which inter alia includes calcium
\n\tgluconate.  The Assistant Collector classified the product under Sub
\n\theading 2915.90 as organic chemicals. The Collector (Appeals) upheld
\n\tthe classification.  Before the Tribunal there was no appearance on
\n\tbehalf of the appellant. The Tribunal merely refers to the fact that
\n\tthe assessee continues to maintain that Note 2(1)(a) would apply to
\n\ttheir products. Without discussing anything else the tribunal in
\n\tthat case observed that the manner in which the products have been
\n\tdescribed, makes it difficult to believe that they are mixture of
\n\tdifferent constituents. In the manner the goods are described, the
\n\tprovision that would attract is sub-clause (b). For such products to
\n\tbecome medicaments, they have to be put up in measured doses or in
\n\tpackings for retail sale. Since the products do not fit under
\n\tChapter Note 2 at all, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order passed
\n\tby the Commissioner (Appeals).  It is relevant to observe that there
\n\twas no discussion worth its name in the decision of Shanpur
\n\tIndustries. Again this decision is rendered in respect of ten
\n\tproducts.  The product in question in the present Appeal i.e.
\n\tCalcium  Gluconate has not at all been separately considered.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\n\tthe above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the sole
\n\treliance placed by the Tribunal in the decision of  Shanpur
\n\tIndustries (Supra)
\n\tis not justified and the Tribunal ought to have given its specific
\n\tfindings on the various submissions made, judgments relied upon and
\n\tthe distinguishing features pointed out by the appellant before the
\n\tTribunal. We, therefore, set aside the impugned
\n\torder passed by the Tribunal and remand the matter back to the
\n\tTribunal to decide the whole issue afresh after giving an adequate
\n\topportunity to the parties and after considering various submissions
\n\tthat may be made before it and to pass a reasoned as well as
\n\tspeaking order.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is made clear that we
\n\thave not expressed any opinion on the classification of the product
\n\tin question. It is open for the Tribunal to take appropriate
\n\tdecision in accordance with law and after considering the
\n\tsubmissions that may be made by the parties before it.\n<\/p>\n
\tSubject to the aforesaid
\n\tdirections and observations this Appeal is allowed to the above
\n\textent and questions proposed to this Court are answered
\n\taccordingly.\n<\/p>\n
\t       (K. A. PUJ, J.)
\n\t(RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J.) kks<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Anil vs Unknown on 4 February, 2010 Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice H.Shukla,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/1570\/2009 3\/ 23 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 1570 of 2009 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of […]<\/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-88999","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAnil vs Unknown on 4 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-vs-unknown-on-4-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anil vs Unknown on 4 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-vs-unknown-on-4-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-10T07:02:34+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-vs-unknown-on-4-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-vs-unknown-on-4-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Anil vs Unknown on 4 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-10T07:02:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-vs-unknown-on-4-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3310,\"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\\\/anil-vs-unknown-on-4-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-vs-unknown-on-4-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-vs-unknown-on-4-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Anil vs Unknown on 4 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-10T07:02:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-vs-unknown-on-4-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-vs-unknown-on-4-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anil-vs-unknown-on-4-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anil vs Unknown on 4 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Anil vs Unknown on 4 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-vs-unknown-on-4-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anil vs Unknown on 4 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-vs-unknown-on-4-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-10T07:02:34+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-vs-unknown-on-4-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-vs-unknown-on-4-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Anil vs Unknown on 4 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-10T07:02:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-vs-unknown-on-4-february-2010"},"wordCount":3310,"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\/anil-vs-unknown-on-4-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-vs-unknown-on-4-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-vs-unknown-on-4-february-2010","name":"Anil vs Unknown on 4 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-10T07:02:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-vs-unknown-on-4-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-vs-unknown-on-4-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anil-vs-unknown-on-4-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anil vs Unknown on 4 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88999","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=88999"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88999\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=88999"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=88999"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=88999"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}