The judgment of the court was delivered by

TULZAPURKAR, J. - This appeal has been preferred by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay, and another against the judgment and order of Vimadalal, J., dated 11th April, 1972, whereby the learned Judge quashed and set aside the revisional orders of the Commissioner and two notices of demand issued by the 2nd respondent (Sales Tax Officer, A Ward) and further restrained and prohibited the two respondents (Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay, and Sales Tax Officer, A Ward), their officers, servants and agents from taking any steps or proceedings in enforcement, furtherance, pursuance or implementation of the said revisional orders and the said notices of demand.

The short facts leading to the filing of Misc. Petition No. 53 of 1967 by the Oriental Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. (original petitioner) may be stated : The petitioner-company, at all material times, carried on the business of manufacturing rubber beltings and was registered as a dealer under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). In respect of their turnover pertaining to sales of rubber beltings during the periods 1st January, 1960, to 31st March, 1960, and 1st April, 1960, to 31st March, 1961, it had collected sales tax at the rate of 3 per cent, but in respect of the said turnover for the said two periods by his assessment orders dated 17th September, 1963, the then Sales Tax Officer held that the petitioner was liable to pay sales tax in the aggregate at 5 per cent on the total sales. Feeling aggrieved by these assessment orders, the petitioner-company filed appeals before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. During the pendency of these appeals, the petitioner-company came across a judgment of the Commissioner of Sales Tax in view of which no sales tax was attracted at all in respect of sales of rubber beltings that had been effected by the petitioner-company and this judgment of the Commissioner of Sales Tax was relied upon by the petitioner-company before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. By his orders in appeals dated 13th April, 1964, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax held that the sales were not liable to any sales tax, but he further held that the two amounts collected as tax by the petitioner-company for the two periods being Rs. 6,357 and Rs. 24,156 stood forfeited to the Government under section 37 of the Act. Against the orders directing forfeiture of the two amounts of sales tax collected by it, the petitioner-company preferred second appeals which were heard by the Deputy Commissioner, who passed orders dated 16th April, 1965, holding that the orders forfeiting the two amounts were bad in view of the Supreme Court decision in Abdul Quader's case ([1964] 15 S.T.C. 403 (S.C.)) and he, therefore, directed that the two amounts be refunded to the petitioner. In accordance with these directions, refund orders were issued in favour of the petitioner-company, but in those refund orders it was directed that the refund will be adjusted towards the amount of tax due from the petitioner-company for the period from 1st July, 1965, to 30th September, 1965, or any subsequent period. In September, 1966, the petitioner-company received from the Commissioner of Sales Tax (1st respondent) two notices asking the petitioner-company to show cause why the orders of the Deputy Commissioner should not be revised. On hearing the petitioner-company through its Advocate, the 1st respondent by his order dated 12th December, 1966, revised the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and held that the said amount of Rs. 6,357 and Rs. 24,156 stood forfeited to Government under section 37 of the Act. The 1st Respondent took the view that the Supreme Court decision in Abdul Quader's case ([1964] 15 S.T.C. 403 (S.C.)) was not applicable to the case before him in view of another decision of the Gujarat High Court in Ramgopal & Sons v. Sales Tax Officer, Surat, and Another ([1965] 16 S.T.C. 1005.).