{"id":94142,"date":"1965-10-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1965-10-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-standard-vacuum-oil-co-ltd-on-25-october-1965"},"modified":"2018-12-02T07:38:40","modified_gmt":"2018-12-02T02:08:40","slug":"commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-standard-vacuum-oil-co-ltd-on-25-october-1965","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-standard-vacuum-oil-co-ltd-on-25-october-1965","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Wealth Tax … vs M\/S. Standard Vacuum Oil Co. Ltd on 25 October, 1965"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Wealth Tax … vs M\/S. Standard Vacuum Oil Co. Ltd on 25 October, 1965<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 995, \t\t 1966 SCR (2) 317<\/div>\n
Author: S Sikri<\/div>\n
Bench: Sikri, S.M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX (CENTRAL)CALCUTTA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/S.  STANDARD VACUUM OIL CO.  LTD.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n25\/10\/1965\n\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nSUBBARAO, K.\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR  995\t\t  1966 SCR  (2) 317\n CITATOR INFO :\n MV\t    1966 SC1370\t (54)\n R\t    1969 SC 612\t (12)\n\n\nACT:\nWealth\tTax  Act (27 of 1957), ss. 2(m) and 3-Debt  owed  on\nvaluation  date-If includes advance tax due under s. 18A  of\nIncome-tax Act, 1922.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nDemands in respect of the payment of tax under s. 18A of the\nIncome\tTax  Act were made against the\trespondent  for\t two\nyears, and the final installment for each of the two  years,\nwas outstanding on the respective valuation dates as defined\nunder  s.  (q) of the Wealth Tax Act,  1957  The  respondent\nclaimed that the arrears of tax as determined as per  notice\nunder  s.  18A constituted a debt, owned by  it\t within\t the\nmeaning\t of  s.\t 2(m)  of the Wealth  Tax  Act,\t as  on\t the\nvaluation  date, and that the amounts should be\t allowed  as\ndeduction in determining its net wealth under the Wealth Tax\nAct.   The Appellate Tribunal referred the question  to\t the\nHigh  Court and the High Court answered it in favour of\t the\nrespondent.\nIn appeal to this Court by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax,\nHELD : The High Court was right in answering the question in\nfavour of the respondent.\nA debt is owed when an order is passed under s. 18A(1) and a\nnotice\tof  demand  is sent.  The amount  mentioned  in\t the\nnotice begins to be owed till a new figure is substituted by\nthe  assessee under S. 18A(2).\tTill a new estimate is\tmade\nby  the\t assessee the amount is ascertained and there  is  a\nstatutory  liability  on  the assessee\tto  pay\t the  amount\nmentioned  in  the order under s. 18A(1) of the\t Income\t Tax\nAct.  Since, on the valuation dates in the present  appeals,\nthe respondent had not taken any action under s. 18A(2), the\namounts\t mentioned in the notices of demand were debts\towed\nwithin s. 2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act on the valuation dates.\n[321 B-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL\tAPPELLATE   JURISDICTION  –   Civil   Appeals\tNos.
\n627 to 628 of 1964.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals\t from the judgment and order dated May 14,  1962  of
\nthe  Calcutta  High Court in Wealth Tax Matter\tNo.  154  of
\n1960.\n<\/p>\n
A.   V. Viswanatha Sastri, N. D. Karkhanis, R. H. Dhebar and
\nR. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
T.   A.\t Ramachandran, J. B.  Dadachanji, O. C.\t Mathur\t and
\nRavinder Narain, for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSikri,\tJ. Two questions were referred to the High Court  by
\nthe  Appellate\tTribunal under s. 27 of the Wealth  Tax\t Act
\n(XXVII
\n318<\/span>
\nof  1957).  We are only concerned with the  second  question
\nwhich reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
\n\t      of  the case, in computing the net  wealth  of
\n\t      the assessee, the arrears of tax as determined
\n\t      as per notice under Section 18A of the  Indian
\n\t      Income  Tax Act for the two  assessment  years
\n\t      under consideration constitute a debt owed  by
\n\t      the  assessee  within the meaning\t of  section
\n\t      2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act as on the valuation
\n\t      date
\nThe  facts  and circumstances of the case  are\tas  follows.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Demands in respect of the payment of tax under s. 18A of the
\nIndian Income Tax Act were made against the respondent\tcom-
\npany, M\/s.  Standard Vacuum Oil Co. Ltd., for the two  years
\nending\tDecember 31, 1956 and December 31, 1957, by  notices
\nof demand dated May 28, 1956 and May 31, 1957, respectively.
\nThe final instalment of the amount of Rs. 47,69,653 for each
\nof the two years was outstanding on the respective valuation
\ndaters.\t The assessee claimed that the demand for such,\t tax
\nshould be allowed as deduction in determining the net wealth
\nof  the\t assessee under the Wealth Tax Act.   The  Appellate
\nTribunal  held\tthat this sum should be\t deducted  from\t the
\ntotal\tcomputation  of\t wealth\t if  the  said\tamount\t was
\noutstanding for less than a year.  It further held that\t the
\ndemand created under s. 18A of the Income Tax Act was a debt
\nowed  by  the  assessee, and it\t directed,  the\t Wealth\t Tax
\nOfficer to ascertain “whether the demand referred to in this
\ncase was outstanding for less than one year on the valuation
\ndate and if so, he will allow the same as a deduction.”\t The
\nHigh Court, following its decision in Assam Oil Co. Ltd.  v.
\nCommissioner of Wealth Tax (Central), Calcutta<\/a>(1),  answered
\nthe question in favour of the assessee.\t The Revenue  having
\nobtained  certificates of fitness from the High Court  filed
\nthese appeals in this Court.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  Viswanatha\t Sastri, learned counsel  for  the  Revenue,
\ncontends that on a true interpretation of s. 18A the  amount
\nwhich  is payable under it is not an ascertained  amount  as
\nthe assessee can estimate the amount which he should pay  as
\nadvance tax.  He says that the section contemplates more  or
\nless the opening of a running account between the State\t and
\nthe assessee and the exact amount is not finalised till\t the
\n15th of March each year, which is the last date by which the
\nassessee  has  to  exercise his option\tto  pay\t the  amount
\ndemanded  or  a lesser sum.  He says that  the\tdebt  really
\nbecomes a debt on the 15th of March when
\n(1)  48 I.T. 49
\n\t\t\t    319<\/span>
\nno  option  is exercised to pay a lesser sum.  In  order  to
\nappreciate  the\t contentions of the learned  counsel  it  is
\nnecessary  to  consider the  relevant  statutory  provisions
\nfirst of the Wealth Tax Act and then of the Income Tax\tAct.
\nSection\t 2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act defines “net wealth”  as
\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n
.lm15
\n”  net wealth’ means the amount by which the aggregate value
\ncomputed  in accordance with the provisions of this  Act  of
\nall the assets, wherever located, belonging to the  assessee
\non  the\t valuation  date, including assets  required  to  be
\nincluded in this net wealth as on that date under this\tAct,
\nis in excess of the aggregate value of all the debts owed by
\nthe assessee on the valuation date other than,-\n<\/p>\n
(i)  debts  which under section 6 are not to be\t taken\tinto
\naccount; and\n<\/p>\n
(ii) debts which are secured on, or which have been incurred
\nin relation to, any asset in respect of which wealth-tax  is
\nnot payable under this Act.\n<\/p>\n
Section 2(q) defines ‘valuation date’ as “in relation to any
\nyear  for which an assessment is to be made under  this-Act,
\nmeans the last day of the previous year as defined in clause
\n(1  1) of section 2 of the Income-tax Act if  an  assessment
\nwere  to be made under that Act for that year”.\t It  is\t not
\nnecessary  to  set  out\t the  proviso  to  this\t definition.
\nSection 3 is the charging section which read& as follows
\n\t      Subject  to the other provisions contained  in
\n\t      this  Act,  there shall be charged  for  every
\n\t      financial\t year  commencing on  and  from\t the
\n\t      first  day of April, 1957, a tax\t(hereinafter
\n\t      referred\tto as wealth-tax) in respect of\t the
\n\t      net wealth on the corresponding valuation date
\n\t      of  every individual, Hindu  undivided  family
\n\t      and company at the rate or rates specified  in
\n\t      the Schedule.”\n<\/p>\n
The  question  with which we are concerned  is\twhether\t the
\namounts\t directed to be paid by notices of demand dated\t May
\n28, 1956 and May 31, 1957, are “debts owed” by the  assessee
\nwithin\ts. 2(m) on the respective valuation dates.  Now\t the
\nnotices of demand were issued under s. 18A(1) of the  Income
\nTax Act.  The exact notices of demand which were issued\t are
\nnot on record, but the learned counsel drew our attention to
\nthe  form  of  notice prescribed  under\t the  Act.   Section
\n18A(1), inter alia, provides that the Income Tax Officer may
\n“by  order in writing, require an assessee to pay  quarterly
\nto the credit of the Central Govern-\n<\/p>\n
L2Sup.\tCI\/66 — 7
\n32 0
\nment  on the 15th day of June, 15th day of  September,\t15th
\nday  of\t December  and\t15th day  of  March  in\t that  year,
\nrespectively, an amount equal to one-quarter of the  income-
\ntax  and super-tax payable on so much of such income  as  is
\nincluded in his total income of the latest previous year  in
\nrespect of which he has been assessed.” It is not  necessary
\nto  refer to the rate at which he has to calculate the\ttax.
\nSub-section  (2) of S. 18A enables an assessee to  formulate
\nhis  own estimate of the tax payable by him if he  considers
\nthat  the income is less than on which he has been  required
\nto pay tax, but he has to send this revised estimate ,of the
\ntax payable by him before any one of the dates specified  in
\nsub-s. (1)(a) and adjust excess or deficiency in respect  of
\nany instalment already paid in a subsequent instalment or in
\nsubsequent  installments.   It is this provision  which\t Mr.
\nSastri\trelies on strongly to show that the demand under  S.
\n18A(1) is not a debt owed, within s. 2(m) of the Wealth\t Tax
\nAct.   He  further refers to sub-s. (5) which  provides\t for
\npayment of simple interest by the Central Government for any
\namount\t paid  by  the\tassessee  in  accordance  with\t the
\nprovisions  of S. 18A.\tHe says that this shows that  it  is
\nreally\tthe Government which ultimately becomes\t the  debtor
\nand  there  is\tno question of any debt being  owed  by\t the
\nassessee.  He further urges that the word “debt” connotes  a
\n,definite  fixed  amount  and  does  not  include  merely  a
\nliability to pay a sum which is not ascertained.
\nIn  our opinion, the High Court was right in  answering\t the
\nquestion  in  favour,  of  the\tassessee.   Section  18A(10)
\nprovides  that\tif the assessee does not  submit  a  revised
\nestimate under sub-s. (2) of s. 18A, and he does not pay  on
\nthe specified date any instalment of tax that he is required
\nto  pay\t under\tsub-s.\t(1), he shall be  deemed  to  be  an
\nassessee  in  default  in  respect  of\tsuch  instalment  or
\ninstalments,  and if he does submit a revised  estimate\t but
\ndoes  not pay an instalment in accordance therewith  on\t the
\ndate or dates specified in sub-s. (1), he shall be deemed to
\nbe  an assessee in default in respect of such instalment  or
\ninstalments.   Under sub-s. (11) any sum paid  or  recovered
\nfrom  the assessee in pursuance of the provisions of S.\t 18A
\nis  given  credit  towards the tax due\tin  respect  of\t the
\nappropriate year.  We cannot find any substantial difference
\nbetween advance tax paid under the provisions of s. 18A\t and
\ntax  due  and  paid under a demand notice  passed  after  an
\nassessment.   The  only difference is that if the  facts  so
\nwarrant, the assessee is enabled to pay less than the amount
\ndemanded by the Income Tax Officer.  But till a new estimate
\nis  made  by the assessee, the amount  is  ascertained\t:and
\nthere  is a statutory liability on the assessee to  pay\t the
\namount
\n3 21
\nmentioned  in  the order under s. 18A.\tWe  agree  with\t the
\nobservations  of the Gujarat High Court in  Commissioner  of
\nWealth-Tax  v.\tRaipur\tManufacturing  Company(1)  that\t  “a
\ncondition subsequent, the fulfilment of which may result  in
\nthe  reduction\tor even extinction of liability,  would\t not
\nhave  the effect of converting the liability which  attaches
\nunder such notice under s. 18A into a contingent liability.”
\nIn  our\t opinion,  a debt is owed when an  order  tinder  s.
\n18A(1)\tis passed and a notice of demand sent.\t The  amount
\nmentioned  in the notice begins to be owe till a new  figure
\nis substituted by the action of the assessee.  On the valua-
\ntion dates in these appeals, the assessee had not taken\t any
\naction\t under\ts.  18A(2)  and\t consequently  the   amounts
\nmentioned in the notices of demand were debts owed within s.
\n2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act on the valuation dates.
\nIn the result we agree with the Calcutta High Court that the
\nanswer to the question referred to it should be in favour of
\nthe assessee.  The   appeals,\ttherefore,  fail   and\t are
\ndismissed with costs, one     set of hearing fee.
\nAppeals dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(1) 52 I.T.R. 482 at p. 522
\n322<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Wealth Tax … vs M\/S. Standard Vacuum Oil Co. Ltd on 25 October, 1965 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 995, 1966 SCR (2) 317 Author: S Sikri Bench: Sikri, S.M. PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX (CENTRAL)CALCUTTA Vs. RESPONDENT: M\/S. STANDARD VACUUM OIL CO. LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/10\/1965 BENCH: SIKRI, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-94142","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Wealth Tax ... vs M\/S. Standard Vacuum Oil Co. Ltd on 25 October, 1965 - 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-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-standard-vacuum-oil-co-ltd-on-25-october-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Wealth Tax ... vs M\/S. Standard Vacuum Oil Co. Ltd on 25 October, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-standard-vacuum-oil-co-ltd-on-25-october-1965\" \/>\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=\"1965-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-02T02:08:40+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=\"10 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-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-standard-vacuum-oil-co-ltd-on-25-october-1965#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-standard-vacuum-oil-co-ltd-on-25-october-1965\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Wealth Tax … vs M\\\/S. Standard Vacuum Oil Co. Ltd on 25 October, 1965\",\"datePublished\":\"1965-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-02T02:08:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-standard-vacuum-oil-co-ltd-on-25-october-1965\"},\"wordCount\":1683,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-standard-vacuum-oil-co-ltd-on-25-october-1965#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-standard-vacuum-oil-co-ltd-on-25-october-1965\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-standard-vacuum-oil-co-ltd-on-25-october-1965\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Wealth Tax ... vs M\\\/S. Standard Vacuum Oil Co. Ltd on 25 October, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1965-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-02T02:08:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-standard-vacuum-oil-co-ltd-on-25-october-1965#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-standard-vacuum-oil-co-ltd-on-25-october-1965\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-standard-vacuum-oil-co-ltd-on-25-october-1965#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Wealth Tax … vs M\\\/S. Standard Vacuum Oil Co. Ltd on 25 October, 1965\"}]},{\"@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":"Commissioner Of Wealth Tax ... vs M\/S. Standard Vacuum Oil Co. Ltd on 25 October, 1965 - 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-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-standard-vacuum-oil-co-ltd-on-25-october-1965","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Wealth Tax ... vs M\/S. Standard Vacuum Oil Co. Ltd on 25 October, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-standard-vacuum-oil-co-ltd-on-25-october-1965","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1965-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-02T02:08:40+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-standard-vacuum-oil-co-ltd-on-25-october-1965#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-standard-vacuum-oil-co-ltd-on-25-october-1965"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Wealth Tax … vs M\/S. Standard Vacuum Oil Co. Ltd on 25 October, 1965","datePublished":"1965-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-02T02:08:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-standard-vacuum-oil-co-ltd-on-25-october-1965"},"wordCount":1683,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-standard-vacuum-oil-co-ltd-on-25-october-1965#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-standard-vacuum-oil-co-ltd-on-25-october-1965","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-standard-vacuum-oil-co-ltd-on-25-october-1965","name":"Commissioner Of Wealth Tax ... vs M\/S. Standard Vacuum Oil Co. Ltd on 25 October, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1965-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-02T02:08:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-standard-vacuum-oil-co-ltd-on-25-october-1965#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-standard-vacuum-oil-co-ltd-on-25-october-1965"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-standard-vacuum-oil-co-ltd-on-25-october-1965#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Wealth Tax … vs M\/S. Standard Vacuum Oil Co. Ltd on 25 October, 1965"}]},{"@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\/94142","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=94142"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94142\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94142"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=94142"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=94142"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}