Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S. Sonak, Advait M. Sethna, JJ
M/s. Borosil Glass Works Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Sales Tax and others – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of case and legal issues. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments from the applicant regarding the application of rule 41d. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. submissions from the revenue countering the applicant's arguments. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 4. court's analysis and interpretation of rule 41d. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66) |
| 5. final ruling and conclusion of the court. (Para 68) |
JUDGMENT :(Per Advait M. Sethna, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Ishaan Patkar, learned counsel for the Applicant in STR No. 9 of 2011, and Ms. Jyoti Chavan, learned Addl. G.P for the Respondent.
A. PROLOGUE.
2. Learned counsel for the parties agreed that both the Sales Tax References i.e. STR No. 9 of 2011 [at behest of the Assessee] and STR No. 96 of 2009 [at behest of the Revenue] arise out of the common judgment and order dated 31 December 2007 of Reference passed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal (“Tribunal” for short). The common question referred reads thus:-
“Whet
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
