{"id":97187,"date":"2010-03-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-19-march-2010"},"modified":"2018-05-17T15:12:24","modified_gmt":"2018-05-17T09:42:24","slug":"commissioner-vs-in-on-19-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-19-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs In on 19 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner vs In on 19 March, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: D.A.Mehta,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   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\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/582\/2008\t 7\/ 7\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. 582 of 2008\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nWith\n \n\n \n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 138 of 2008\n \n\nIn\nTAX APPEAL No. 582 of 2008\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA  \nHONOURABLE\nMS. JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n \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\n\t\t\tbe referred 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\nCOMMISSIONER\nOF CUSTOMS - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nMILLAT\nFIBERS (1OO% EOU) - Opponent(s)\n \n\n========================================= \nAppearance\n: \nMR AY KOGJE\nfor Appellant(s) :\n1, \nNOTICE UNSERVED for Opponent(s) :\n1, \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 D.A.MEHTA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n                               and\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS. JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 19\/03\/2010 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>       (Per : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE<br \/>\nH.N.DEVANI)<\/p>\n<p>1.\t\tIn<br \/>\nthis appeal under section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act)<br \/>\nAppellant-Revenue has challenged order dated 30th<br \/>\nNovember, 2007 made by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate<br \/>\nTribunal (the Tribunal) proposing the following questions stated to<br \/>\nbe substantial questions of law:-\n<\/p>\n<p>Whether,<br \/>\n\tin the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is<br \/>\n\tjustified in rejecting the appeal of the Revenue and confirming the<br \/>\n\torder of the adjudicating authority on the ground that exercise of<br \/>\n\tpowers under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be resorted<br \/>\n\tfor recovering the amount of Customs Duty erroneously refunded?\n<\/p>\n<p>Whether,<br \/>\n\tin the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is<br \/>\n\tjustified in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals),<br \/>\n\tinter alia, holding that examination of the issue in case of<br \/>\n\terroneously refunded duty amount under Section 28 of the Customs<br \/>\n\tAct, 1962 on the Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment would amount to<br \/>\n\treview of order of the adjudicating authority sanctioning the<br \/>\n\trefund?\n<\/p>\n<p>Whether,<br \/>\n\tin the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is<br \/>\n\tjustified in confirming the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who<br \/>\n\tallowed the appeal of the respondent on the ground not urged in the<br \/>\n\tmemo of the appeal by him?\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tThe<br \/>\nrespondent herein at the relevant time was holding a licence of 100%<br \/>\nEOU.  In connection with alleged illicit clearance of imported<br \/>\nPolyester Filament Yarn show cause notice dated 19.9.2002 came to be<br \/>\nissued against the respondent. The show cause notice came to be<br \/>\nadjudicated vide order-in-original dated 30th October,<br \/>\n2003 whereby interalia, demand of customs duty amounting to<br \/>\nRs.5,34,695\/- was confirmed. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals)<br \/>\nheld that the adjudicating authority had no jurisdiction to confirm<br \/>\nsuch a demand and set aside only that part of the order, whereas the<br \/>\norder of confiscation under section 111 of the Act and redemption<br \/>\nfine under section 125(1) of the Act was upheld. As the respondent<br \/>\nhad already deposited the duty amount, it made an application for<br \/>\nrefund. Vide order-in-original dated 22nd February, 2005,<br \/>\nthe claim for refund to the extent of Rs.2,92,585\/- came to be<br \/>\nrejected whereas refund of Rs.2,42,110\/- came to be sanctioned.<br \/>\nHowever, it was directed that the sanctioned refund be appropriated<br \/>\nagainst pending dues.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tLater<br \/>\non the adjudicating authority noticed that the doctrine of unjust<br \/>\nenrichment was not verified before sanctioning refund of<br \/>\nRs.2,42,110\/-. He, therefore, issued a show-cause notice dated<br \/>\n07.06.2005 to the respondent as to why the refund which was<br \/>\nsanctioned and erroneously refunded by appropriating the same against<br \/>\nGovernment dues should not be rejected and the appropriated amount<br \/>\nshould not be recovered under section 28 read with section 72 of the<br \/>\nAct in absence of any proof of incidence of duty not being passed on.<br \/>\nThe show-cause notice came to be adjudicated vide order dated 15th<br \/>\nFebruary, 2006 whereby the adjudicating authority sanctioned refund<br \/>\nof Rs.2,42,110\/- and ordered the same to be credited to the Consumer<br \/>\nWelfare Fund.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\tThe<br \/>\nrespondent carried the matter in appeal before Commissioner (Appeals)<br \/>\nwho, vide order dated 26th June, 2006, held that the issue<br \/>\nof second show-cause notice after having already passed an order<br \/>\nsanctioning refund by the adjudicating authority would amount to<br \/>\nreviewing his own order. That the proper course for the Department<br \/>\nwas to review the order under section 129D(2) of the Act and<br \/>\nthereafter, file an appeal under section 129D(4) of the Act. The<br \/>\nCommissioner (Appeals) held that as the order passed by the<br \/>\nadjudicating authority amounts to review of his own order, the same<br \/>\nwas not permissible and accordingly allowed the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tRevenue<br \/>\ncarried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal.  The Tribunal<br \/>\nagreed with the reasoning adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) and<br \/>\ndismissed the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>A. Y. Kogje, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant revenue<br \/>\ninvited attention to the provisions of section 28 of the Act to<br \/>\nsubmit that where any duty has been erroneously refunded, it is<br \/>\npermissible for the adjudicating authority to serve notice requiring<br \/>\nthe concerned person to show cause as to why he should not pay the<br \/>\namount specified in the notice. It was submitted that while making<br \/>\nthe order dated 22nd February, 2005 the aspect of unjust<br \/>\nenrichment had not been considered, hence the refund made pursuant to<br \/>\nthe said order could be said to have been erroneously refunded so as<br \/>\nto bring the same within the ambit of section 28 of the Act. It was,<br \/>\naccordingly, submitted that the questions of law as proposed, arise<br \/>\nout of the impugned order of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\t\tThe<br \/>\nrecord of the case indicates that vide order dated 22nd<br \/>\nFebruary, 2005, the adjudicating authority had adjudicated on the<br \/>\nclaim of refund made by the respondents. At the relevant time, it was<br \/>\npermissible for the adjudicating authority to go into all issues<br \/>\nwhich were necessary to be looked into for the purpose of deciding<br \/>\nthe application for refund, including the aspect of unjust<br \/>\nenrichment. The adjudicating authority after duly considering the<br \/>\nclaim of the respondent rejected part of the claim and allowed the<br \/>\nclaim to the extent of Rs.2,42,110\/- and directed that the same<br \/>\nshould be appropriated against outstanding Government dues. Later on<br \/>\nafter the said order was implemented another show cause notice came<br \/>\nto be issued calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why the<br \/>\nrefund claim of Rs.2,42,110\/-  sanctioned and erroneously refunded by<br \/>\nappropriating against the outstanding Government dues should not be<br \/>\nrejected and amount so appropriated should not be recovered under<br \/>\nsection 28 read with section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 in absence<br \/>\nof proof regarding burden of duty being not passed on. The very frame<br \/>\nof the show-cause notice indicates that the adjudicating authority<br \/>\nwas reviewing the earlier order inasmuch the respondent had been<br \/>\ncalled upon to show cause as to why the refund granted by the earlier<br \/>\norder should not be rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tSub-section<br \/>\n(2) section 129D empowers the Commissioner of Customs to call for and<br \/>\nexamine the record of any proceeding in which an adjudicating<br \/>\nauthority subordinate to him has passed any decision or order under<br \/>\nthe Act for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or<br \/>\npropriety of any such decision or order and to direct such authority<br \/>\nto apply to the Commissioner (Appeals) for the determination of such<br \/>\npoints arising out of the decision or order as may be specified by<br \/>\nthe Commissioner in his order. Sub-section (4) thereof provides for<br \/>\npreferring an appeal against the order of the concerned authority. In<br \/>\nthe circumstances, if the adjudicating authority was of the view that<br \/>\nthe doctrine of unjust enrichment had not been examined while making<br \/>\nthe order of refund, the proper course to adopt was to take recourse<br \/>\nto the provisions of section 129D. A perusal of the order-in-original<br \/>\ndated 15.02.2006 shows that the adjudicating authority has held that<br \/>\nthe refundable amount of Rs.2,42,110\/- is required to be credited to<br \/>\nthe Consumer Welfare Fund established under section 12 C of the<br \/>\nCentral Excise Act, 1944 and that the same cannot be refunded to the<br \/>\nparty by appropriating against outstanding Government dues of<br \/>\nRs.2,75,306\/- of Customs Duty vide OIO dated 13.02.2004. Thus in<br \/>\neffect and substance the adjudicating authority, has set aside its<br \/>\nearlier order dated 13.2.2004 whereby the refund amount had been<br \/>\nordered to be appropriated against outstanding Government dues. The<br \/>\nadjudicating authority has no power or authority under the Act to<br \/>\nreconsider or review or sit in appeal over its earlier order.  No<br \/>\nsuch power or authority has been pointed out by the learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tIn<br \/>\nthe aforesaid factual background, the Commissioner (Appeals) was<br \/>\njustified in holding that the show-cause notice issued by the<br \/>\nadjudicating authority on the ground of unjust enrichment, would<br \/>\namount to review of his own order which was not permissible. The view<br \/>\nexpressed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the proper course of<br \/>\naction was for the Department to review the order under section<br \/>\n129D(2) of the Act and thereafter file appeal under section 129D(4)<br \/>\nis in consonance with the provisions of the Act. The impugned order<br \/>\nof the Tribunal whereby it has confirmed the findings recorded by the<br \/>\nCommissioner (Appeals) does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as<br \/>\nto warrant interference. No question of law, much less any<br \/>\nsubstantial question of law can be stated to arise out of the<br \/>\nimpugned order of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tThe<br \/>\nappeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p> Civil<br \/>\nApplication No.138 of 2008<\/p>\n<p>\t\tIn<br \/>\nview of the order passed in the main Tax Appeal, this application<br \/>\nwould not survive and is disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(<br \/>\nD.A. Mehta, J. )<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(<br \/>\nHarsha Devani, J. )<\/p>\n<p>hki<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Commissioner vs In on 19 March, 2010 Author: D.A.Mehta,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/582\/2008 7\/ 7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 582 of 2008 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 138 of 2008 In TAX APPEAL No. 582 of 2008 For Approval [&hellip;]<\/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-97187","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Commissioner vs In on 19 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-19-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner vs In on 19 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-19-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-17T09:42:24+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\\\/commissioner-vs-in-on-19-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-in-on-19-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs In on 19 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-17T09:42:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-in-on-19-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1441,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-in-on-19-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-in-on-19-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-in-on-19-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs In on 19 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-17T09:42:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-in-on-19-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-in-on-19-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-in-on-19-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs In on 19 March, 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":"Commissioner vs In on 19 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-19-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs In on 19 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-19-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-17T09:42:24+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\/commissioner-vs-in-on-19-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-19-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs In on 19 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-17T09:42:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-19-march-2010"},"wordCount":1441,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-19-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-19-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-19-march-2010","name":"Commissioner vs In on 19 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-17T09:42:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-19-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-19-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-19-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs In on 19 March, 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\/97187","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=97187"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97187\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=97187"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=97187"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=97187"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}