B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.

1. At the out set, we must mention that all these matters were placed on Board on 15th March, 2018 under the caption “for directions” simply because after the arguments were concluded, the judgment was reserved on 8th February, 2017. Though the judgment was reserved, one of us (B. P. Colabawalla, J.) was hospitalized and thereafter advised not to resume regular duties, but to take specified cases for some duration. It is only recently that he has resumed his normal duties. Additionally, after resumption and being part of other Division Benches, on account of heavy workload, the judgment could not be made ready and pronounced. In these circumstances, on 15th March, 2018, we enquired from the learned advocates appearing for all the parties, as to whether there were any subsequent developments and/or events occurring post the matter being reserved for judgment, and whether any additional points of law are to be placed by either of them. All of them indicated that there are no changed circumstances that need to be taken into consideration. In addition thereto, all the parties also stated before us that they have no objection to the judgment being pronounced even now and after such a considerable delay. It is in these circumstances, that we had recorded the consent of all parties by our order dated 15th March, 2018 and directed that the matter be posted for pronouncement of judgment on a later date which shall be notified to all in advance. It is in these circumstances that the judgment has been pronounced today.

2. All these matters have been filed inter alia challenging the judgment and order dated 20th January, 2015 passed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal (for short “the MSTT” or “the Tribunal”) under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short the “BST Act”). This impugned order was passed in Appeal No.113 of 2007 wherein the Tribunal has allowed the Appeal filed by the State Government against the determination order passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax under Section 52 of the BST Act (for short “the DDQ order”). Over and above this, what has also been challenged is the judgment and order of the MSTT dated 9th September, 2014 read with the Corrigendum dated 25th September, 2014 passed in Miscellaneous Application No.291 of 2007. In these orders, the MSTT held that the said Appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra is maintainable and also condoned the delay in filing the Appeal. Since common questions of fact and law arise in all the above matters, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the facts as set out in Writ Petition No.2217 of 2015 filed by Reliance Industries Limited.

3. In Writ Petition No.2217 of 2015, the Petitioner is Reliance Industries Limited (for short “RIL”) which is a public limited company inter alia engaged in the manufacture of petrochemicals. Respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Ministry of Finance. Respondent No.2 is the MSTT constituted under the BST Act. Respondent No.3 is Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short “BPCL”) which is a public sector undertaking engaged in the business of refining and selling petroleum products and who is the supplier of Kerosene to RIL in the present dispute. Respondent No.4 is the Commissioner of Sales Tax functioning and discharging his duties under the provisions of the BST Act.

4. It is the case of RIL that in or around 1992, RIL had established a petrochemical plant in Patalganga for manufacturing Linear Alkyl Benzenes (“LAB”). RIL required N-Paraffin as a raw material for the manufacture of LAB. According to RIL, Kerosene also known as Paraffin, is a mixture of Hydrocarbons in the range of C-8 to C-18. Out of such mixture, the Hydrocarbons C-8 and C-9 are known as Light Paraffin. Hydrocarbons from C-10 to C-13 are known as N-Paraffin