2025:BHC-OS:15290-DB 34-STR-94-2009-J-F.DOCX Amol IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SALES TAX REFERENCE NO. 94 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, 8^th Floor, Vikrikar Bhavan, Sardar Balwantsingh Dhodi Marg, Mazgaon, Mumbai – 400 00. …Applicant Versus M/s Superphone India Ltd E-22 Electronic Zone, M.I.D.C. Bhosari, Pune. …Respondent ______________________________________________________ Ms Jyoti Chavan, Addl GP, and Mr Himanshu Takke, AGP, for Applicant.

______________________________________________________

CORAM: M.S. Sonak &

Advait M. Sethna, JJ.

DATED: 11 September 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT :- Per M. S. Sonak, J

1. Heard Ms Chavan and Mr Takke for the applicant.

2. The Respondent is duly served. However, neither any representative of the Respondents nor any Advocate on their behalf appears in this reference.

AMOL PREMNATH

3. This reference was made by the Maharashtra Sales Tax JADHAV Tribunal (Tribunal) under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Digitally signed by AMOL PREMNATH JADHAV Act 1959 (said Act) by a common Judgment and Order dated Date: 2025.09.16

6 December 2002, referring the following questions for the determination of this Court.

“(i) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law in holding that it is open to the Tribunal in deciding a Second Appeal under Section 55(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 against the Order summarily rejecting the First Appeal for non-payment of Part Payment fixed by the First Appellate Authority to interfere with the amounts fixed by the First Appellate Authority towards Part Payment on the ground that the said Authority has not exercised the discretion properly, even though the Respondent has not challenged the validity or correctness of the Order fixing the amount of Part Payment under Section 55(5) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 in Second Appeal when that Order was passed?

(ii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the validity of the Part Payment Order can be questioned in Second Appeal which was against the Summary Rejection of First Appeal for non-payment of Part Payment fixed under Section 55(5) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959?

(iii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Order of Summary Rejection can not be separated or bifurcated from the Order of Part Payment?

(iv) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law in taking a view that the Part Payment Order had not attained finality and the Petitioner's Appeal was not rendered incompetent upon the Petitioner's failure to deposit the sum within the specified time?

(v) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law in holding that there was no direct finding given by the Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Chetna Polycoats Pvt. Ltd., (95 STC 620) as regards to whether the Appellate Tribunal can deal with the question of quantum of payment fixed by the First Appellate Authority while hearing the Appeal against summary dismissal for non-payment of Part Payment when there was no Appeal filed against the Order fixing the Part Payment?

(vi) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Tribunal has power to modify the Order of Part Payment passed in First Appeal while hearing the Second Appeal filed against the final order of summary dismissal of the First Appeal for non-payment of Part Payment fixed, when there was no Appeal filed against the Order fixing the Part Payment ?(vi) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Tribunal has power to modify the Order of Part Payment passed in First Appeal while hearing the Second Appeal filed against the final order of summary dismissal of the First Appeal for non-payment of Part Payment fixed, when there was no Appeal filed against the Order fixing the Part Payment?”

4. The reference was made in the following facts and circumstances: -

(a) The Respondent-assesses are manufacturers of Electrical Goods, sound Tra