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:-

“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on the correct interpretation of Rule 41-D of Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959 , the full set-off is available under Rule 41D main provision or the set off is available after reducing 6 per cent of purchase price under sub-rule 3(a) of Rule 41D on purchases of furnace oil used in manufacture of goods partly sold locally and partly transferred to branches outside the state?”

3. This Court is confronted with the above two Sales Tax References (“STR” for short) for adjudication/determination. STR No. 9 of 2011 arises from the proceedings preferred by the Assessee (“Borosil” for