{"id":9250,"date":"2008-07-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-india-heritage-foundation-vs-state-of-karantaka-on-3-july-2008"},"modified":"2018-06-16T01:49:26","modified_gmt":"2018-06-15T20:19:26","slug":"ms-india-heritage-foundation-vs-state-of-karantaka-on-3-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-india-heritage-foundation-vs-state-of-karantaka-on-3-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"M\/S India Heritage Foundation vs State Of Karantaka on 3 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S India Heritage Foundation vs State Of Karantaka on 3 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar<\/div>\n
'yr! I\\f\"'IlI5I.l'IlI'IlII\"' Ill'!!! \\a\u00bb'|-I\\Jl\\I \\l'I\n\n!\\l'I5\\,' V   '  \" \nBANGALORE-560      \u00bb\nBY ITS MANAG1NG'TR%JSTEE'= \u00bb 4 \nSR1. MAD}-IU PAIiD!'f'.DAS:'S.;..._ , \"\nAGED ABoU'\u00a7*5oYEAI;>.s. 1'; ' PETITIONER\n_ [By spat, H,_ vani, Adm]\n\n1.\u00bb V. '_ s'im?3: OF' KARNATA~KA.,\n\n' - DEPARTMENETAOF FINANCE,\n\n \u00bb REP, VB'!  'SECRETARY,\nA  V\u00a3DHAhlI%SOU'\u00a3}P\u00a7A,\nBA'r;\u00a21ALc>.R\u00a7:__e~;36o 001.\n\nM2.' _ THF}---C0;'M1sti:'sf'S!ONER 01?\n\n COMMERCIAL TAXES,\n \" VANIJYP.-THERIGE KARYALAYA,\nV. GANDHINAGAR,\n' ._BAN_GALORE -- 560 009.\n\nh  THE ASSISTANT COMM!SSIONER op'\n\n\"  COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUI.'}I'!')-22,\nD.v.o....n,\n\nBANGALORE. RESPONDENTS<\/pre>\n
[By Smt. Niloufer Akbar, AGA]<\/p>\n
I \\4lP1O7_21V;_Ot’)fi_7OO…_<\/p>\n
IF XARNATAKA H-\u00a5GH CODE!’ OF KARNAYAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNAYAKA HIGH  OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUE<\/p>\n
5 WP1O721.O’? e._4 ‘e._V<\/p>\n
(2) Immishing of cz cheque or any  <\/p>\n
instrument towards payment q,=’Aa.s’un-zbyv ” e  ‘<\/p>\n
any such dealer shall be deemed mere   fj *   A<\/p>\n
compounds an o_\ufb01”er-tee   fg
\nthe order referred teiyl  — ” A <\/p>\n
(:1) Shall be in  cmd”\n<\/p>\n
o_0″e=.-nee. oommmecl,   ” ‘of
\nm0M’~’\u00a7”t.\u00b01’ be  \ufb02it?  date<\/p>\n
(b) __   who<\/p>\n
..{\u00a37Z}   e\ufb02foroed in the same
\n V’ malmer am decree of a court fur
\n _  ‘\u00abthe”‘pqyment of the anwunt stated<\/p>\n
 (4;   the prescribed authority<\/p>\n
‘ x T the-tfealercorleemedshall notbe liableto<\/p>\n
 ‘prosecution in respect ofsuch ofenoe or<\/p>\n
V-to any\ufb01utherpenaltyunderthis Section<\/p>\n
and such dealer shall not appeal against
\nthesaidproeeedings.’<\/p>\n
 a dealer is relieved of any possibi\ufb01ty of being<\/p>\n
OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARKATAKA I-i\u00a5GH COURT OF KARNAYAKA HSGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HSGH \u20ac03.33? OF !\u20acA&%%A’\u00a7’AKA MGR COL!<\/p>\n
prosecuted before the criminal court.<\/p>\n
3: arxnmarra are mien W\ufb02li\ufb01\ufb01\ufb01’ me Ill nnsavawa u-ecu r-nun’! ht vanuafmfa \ufb02i\ufb01\ufb02 {“\ufb01H\ufb021′ OF ifA\u00a7N\u00a7TAKA H193;  93?: gigga\u00e9\ufb01gggg H355 cone<\/p>\n
DE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA RIG!-*1 COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C01}?<\/p>\n
7 wpgtiizmv<\/p>\n
9. Though the communication at <\/p>\n
9.4.2007 is tarmac! as a’ show.\n<\/p>\n
petitioner is given an oppoxtmlitftp   <\/p>\n
charge sheet should not  \ufb01”gainst_T’>t1A1:\u00e9..;VVpetii;ioner,~ L’<\/p>\n
instead of showing caygsc thee’   afapzoached<\/p>\n
th1sV ‘ court raising va11oi1$.T_ieg’\ufb01al\u00bb:Vc<mT"'  <\/p>\n
10. on 133136 V. Akbar, learned
\nAdditionalv    entemd appearance
\nfor  gin\u00a3i’vvstat\u00a3:x11ent of objec\ufb01ons has also<\/p>\n
 V.  –  With’%*Qons\u00a7\u00e9iit”‘6f learned counsel for the parties, the<\/p>\n
  up for disposal.\n<\/p>\n
 12.2″  Smt. Vani, learned counsel for the petitioner
\n ~ \u00a7na,sn};t. Nnoum Akbar, learned Additional Government<\/p>\n
13. The \ufb02rst oontemtion is that the facts of the present
\ncase are such that the ruling of the Supreme Court; in<\/p>\n
RA.FwJ&’scase does not applyto the petitioncr’s case.<\/p>\n
M imgmanim Lmzu \u00a3”.(‘!lil!’I’ on KARNATAKA HIGH count OF KARNATAKA i-!!%!>-2 QQQRT OF KARNATAKA H16!-1 (SOUR? OF KARNATAKJA MGR COW<\/p>\n
1-way\u00bb: ‘l”IIl”Il\\l’I | Iu\\.i| I \\.\\,;\u00a7;<\/p>\n
3 ,w’9:io721.o7<\/p>\n
14. The second contention is that whieni: the<\/p>\n
similar circumstances a distinetionwas  to  ’33:1ax.de'<<\/p>\n
and this court did not agx*et1V    J<\/p>\n
affirmed the View in ,;ua;gs\u00a2mtttaatsaee 3.8.2007
\nrendered in  ofsoofir in the case
\nof 'LARSEN Q;  vs. '1HE
\nsum or   the appellant
\ntherein  'further to the Supreme
\n    coming up before the
\n   should wait to know the<\/p>\n
outcome' ,~. _ T-\n<\/p>\n
 ”  _ A   tI1tt’d””L*onten\ufb01on is that the advance ruling is
\n     on facts the Judment of the Supreme
\n‘A  case is not applicable, nevertheless,<\/p>\n
 x the advance ruling authority has opined it is appiicable
\n  it is based on this clari\ufb01cation the authorities are now<\/p>\n
 rushing to launch prosecution against the petitioner and<\/p>\n
therefore submitted that the advance ruling given by the
\nauthority in terms of Anne-xure-D also deserves to be<\/p>\n
quashed.\n<\/p>\n
WW<\/p>\n
nxamnnugnn -In ntnu\ufb01ulhulh I<\/p>\n
9 wP1o721.o7f <\/p>\n
16. The last contention is that Anne:-mre-E ._j[j–i: I   .<\/p>\n
notice to launch prosecution is not valid i_I.1~1e_W;   .<\/p>\n
is no detemiined tax liability by any   *4.’<\/p>\n
determining the tax liability for :t1on\u00a5peiy;:(1ex1{“oi’  of <\/p>\n
which? prosecution could have that tile
\nauthority who has indicated   in the
\nso called show cause   not the
\ncompetent authozcitj? 1  assuming
\nthat there is     jietitioner for the
\nperiod in queetioiii.  and quanti\ufb01cation
\ncan only be _done    authority that too in<\/p>\n
\ufb021e’i’\/iilbcveegi ” . _ “‘}:.j.’n’:’gisv.u11(1er Se  39 of the Act and not in a<\/p>\n
   section 79 or section 82 of the<\/p>\n
   each submissions, Smt. Niloufer Akbar,<\/p>\n
3F KARNATAKA I-HGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HJGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH uuum ur axmcrvusnzua ru-urn ……..-2…’<\/p>\n
  \ufb01idditional Government Advocate would submit
\n4:   the petitioner cannot urge before this court that the<\/p>\n
  of the Supreme Court cannot be made applicable to<\/p>\n
the present case on the facts of this case for the simple<\/p>\n
reason that the facts have not even been examined by the<\/p>\n
E. \/-\n<\/p>\n
. f
\n2″\n<\/p>\n
men COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH cook”: or KARNATAKA men or ” m’..o’1=\u00a7i
\ncs KARNAIAKA me:-I COURT or KARNATAKA  3%  KMNMMA ‘7″?-‘g- -993<\/p>\n
DF KARNATAKA HHS!-I COURT OF KARHATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HEG!-E COURT OF KAKNAEAIKA ruurl yuan<\/p>\n
12 wP1o721.Q7f”\u00bbo..\n<\/p>\n
but it is proper for the authorities to examine and       _
\nthe matter reaches’ this court on the beam’ of    u <\/p>\n
provision provided under the Act     77A<\/p>\n
examined.\n<\/p>\n
23. While Smt Vani,   is
\nright in submitting,   proper
\ndetermination  assuming
\nthat the peutioxger-is   open for the
\nauthorities    notice as under
\nsections 79 or 8Q_  of  show cause notice at
\n itsolf   the assessor: had filed ‘nil’<\/p>\n
  in question. If a ‘nil’ return is filed,<\/p>\n
  is    ‘.\ufb01$fs3essing authority to examine that
\n  once the return is \ufb01led in terms of
\n 354,i1;is taken to be a doomed assessment on the
\n unless in terms of section 38(1) of the Act<\/p>\n
V   :  _  reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
’38. Assasmunt of tax<\/p>\n
(1) Every dealershall be_de_emed to have
\nbeenassewedtotaxbasexiontheretum<\/p>\n
\u00bb- –a – —- — \u00absnaps: 1-uni hair 15!! illlhki\ufb02f\ufb02v\ufb01 “If.”        <\/p>\n
-an-ur-u<\/p>\n
15 <\/span>
\npossible tax liability on the part of the <\/p>\n
Without a proper determination~by_ 3. <\/p>\n
As rightly submitted by learned   i<\/p>\n
and by drawing attezitioii’-.if;o~~  of  “Aer. whieh<\/p>\n
reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“83. Validity…  not to he
\n ii’:\n<\/p>\n
z   assessment of
\n  or’oj”-the Zeixy of any fee or other
\n.. ‘* _ Vtirider this Act, or the
\n* V  0-[any person to pay any tax, fee
\na \u00ab or e$h_er\u00ab.;Imount so assessed or levied
\n  not  in any Criminal
\n in “any prosecution or other
\nprooeediflg, whether under this Act or
\n ._otheru}ise. ‘<\/p>\n
 1 whom prosecution proceedings are
\n  heiannot question the validity or legality of the
\n2 * ioiiier V\ufb02of assessxnents for non-compliance with which<\/p>\n
 is being launched. Correctness of the order<\/p>\n
‘ can only be questioned in an appeal as provided under the<\/p>\n
Act. The criminal court is also not enabled to either set:
\naside or modify the assessments as expressly provided in<\/p>\n
section 85 of the Act. The compounding of o\ufb02ence in<\/p>\n
 . ..\n<\/p>\n
n..J:IL..Ili.l|lIlI-l\\I IA I\\ll’\\!\\”\\ lllil<\/p>\n
– want’:-\n<\/p>\n
KIT I\\af\\I’\\I’If’|lf”1l\\”‘ ‘ 7’\\Il I ‘\\-‘fur!’ F<\/p>\n
1 7 w=P_ 1o721.o7<\/p>\n
25. While it is no doubt true that the <\/p>\n
fraudulent evasion of tax as one’ offence vaend’4pi’o\\jides fore’ <\/p>\n
penalty as Well as imprisonmeiin   ingee’ it<\/p>\n
being a serious  .   not
\ncasually but only when  when the
\nauthorities are fully’    a de\ufb01nite case of<\/p>\n
fraudu1ent.vevasion.\u00a7;_ 1:\n<\/p>\n
26.  txiereiiti  provided under the Act
\neven’  can be launched only with the
\nsanction’ by eefiominiissioner. it is no doubt true that in<\/p>\n
Vtiieyv i’p1eseVnt~–\u00bb  the petitioner also could have<\/p>\n
‘  ‘approached. the Clonimissioner to impress upon the<\/p>\n
” . “Commissioner that it is not a fit case for prosecution and<\/p>\n
 siiould not be permitted etc., but that does not come in<\/p>\n
”  it  way of the petitioner seeking relief in writ jurisdiction<\/p>\n
 as the proposed action on the part of the third respondent<\/p>\n
— officer is an instance of mala\ufb01de exercise of authority.<\/p>\n
27. In the present set of facts and circumstances, I am<\/p>\n
of the View that Annexupe~–E proposition notice is de\ufb01nitely<\/p>\n
._ __-… ….. -._… gm-Ln-‘autumn: III l\\lfl(“\\ I..!\u00a3’tI<\/p>\n
}_ 9 w’i?_\u00a7;t*3ff21.07<\/p>\n
tax liability and not otherwise. In the  <\/p>\n
whether right or wrong, the petitioner  <\/p>\n
liability. In such an event, it   the  J<\/p>\n
competent authority first   es.\n<\/p>\n
takes up further action  \u00e9iwithijhe statutory<\/p>\n
provisions.\n<\/p>\n
30. It is  .__ii.*3c”’13ro130sition notice bearing
\nNo.JCC,’.1_’ ~ i\u00a7oV1nri1issioner~XH\/INS-49\/06~07<\/p>\n
dated 9.4.i200~;rif[c9pyjat Aimexure-E] issued by the third<\/p>\n
respondent alone  of a writ of certiorari<\/p>\n
andsin’ all other  s,;–\u00a3hve azithori\ufb01es are free to proceed<\/p>\n
 ;Iv.i”:.\u20acV –;9etiiione_r in accordance with law for<\/p>\n
   and on the basis of the law as<\/p>\n
 \ufb02lerssn\u00e9cmme Court and as has been noticed<\/p>\n
  I   applicable in the similar facts and<\/p>\n
   in LARSEN 3. 100320 mnmzrs case in<\/p>\n
 inie””‘iigxppea; N0.1409 of 2007.<\/p>\n
 The advance ruling clarifying the applicability of the<\/p>\n
ratio of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in RAHEJA’s<\/p>\n
.- …._…- .uu.un Lnnuuunsuuu .15 nnnnn Ll\ufb01l<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M\/S India Heritage Foundation vs State Of Karantaka on 3 July, 2008 Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar ‘yr! I\\f”‘IlI5I.l’IlI’IlII”‘ Ill’!!! \\a\u00bb’|-I\\Jl\\I \\l’I !\\l’I5\\,’ V ‘ ” BANGALORE-560 \u00bb BY ITS MANAG1NG’TR%JSTEE’= \u00bb 4 SR1. MAD}-IU PAIiD!’f’.DAS:’S.;…_ , ” AGED ABoU’\u00a7*5oYEAI;>.s. 1′; ‘ PETITIONER _ [By spat, H,_ vani, Adm] 1.\u00bb V. ‘_ s’im?3: 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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9250","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S India Heritage Foundation vs State Of Karantaka on 3 July, 2008 - 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\/ms-india-heritage-foundation-vs-state-of-karantaka-on-3-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S India Heritage Foundation vs State Of Karantaka on 3 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-india-heritage-foundation-vs-state-of-karantaka-on-3-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-15T20:19:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-india-heritage-foundation-vs-state-of-karantaka-on-3-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-india-heritage-foundation-vs-state-of-karantaka-on-3-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S India Heritage Foundation vs State Of Karantaka on 3 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-15T20:19:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-india-heritage-foundation-vs-state-of-karantaka-on-3-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1422,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-india-heritage-foundation-vs-state-of-karantaka-on-3-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-india-heritage-foundation-vs-state-of-karantaka-on-3-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-india-heritage-foundation-vs-state-of-karantaka-on-3-july-2008\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S India Heritage Foundation vs State Of Karantaka on 3 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-15T20:19:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-india-heritage-foundation-vs-state-of-karantaka-on-3-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-india-heritage-foundation-vs-state-of-karantaka-on-3-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-india-heritage-foundation-vs-state-of-karantaka-on-3-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S India Heritage Foundation vs State Of Karantaka on 3 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S India Heritage Foundation vs State Of Karantaka on 3 July, 2008 - 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\/ms-india-heritage-foundation-vs-state-of-karantaka-on-3-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S India Heritage Foundation vs State Of Karantaka on 3 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-india-heritage-foundation-vs-state-of-karantaka-on-3-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-15T20:19:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-india-heritage-foundation-vs-state-of-karantaka-on-3-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-india-heritage-foundation-vs-state-of-karantaka-on-3-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S India Heritage Foundation vs State Of Karantaka on 3 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-15T20:19:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-india-heritage-foundation-vs-state-of-karantaka-on-3-july-2008"},"wordCount":1422,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-india-heritage-foundation-vs-state-of-karantaka-on-3-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-india-heritage-foundation-vs-state-of-karantaka-on-3-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-india-heritage-foundation-vs-state-of-karantaka-on-3-july-2008","name":"M\/S India Heritage Foundation vs State Of Karantaka on 3 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-15T20:19:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-india-heritage-foundation-vs-state-of-karantaka-on-3-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-india-heritage-foundation-vs-state-of-karantaka-on-3-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-india-heritage-foundation-vs-state-of-karantaka-on-3-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S India Heritage Foundation vs State Of Karantaka on 3 July, 2008"}]},{"@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\/9250","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=9250"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9250\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9250"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9250"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9250"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}