M/s VIP Industries Ltd v. The Commissioner of Sales Tax & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The application is disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. The application is disposed of accordingly. (D.G. KARNIK, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)
Judgment
Mr. C.B. Thakkar for the applicant. Ms. Geeta Shastri, A.G.P. For the respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 7TH AUGUST 2009 P.C. :
The applicant is directed to make a reference to this Court on the following questions:- (1) Whether the Tribunal was correct, in law and on facts, while holding that on sales of goods to Canteen Stores Department (CSD) against declaration in Form ‘H’, under entry 1 of Group H of Schedule of Notification issued under Section 2 41 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (the Bombay Act), turnover tax u/s.9 of the Bombay Act and Surcharge under section 15-AI of the Bombay Act is not exempt and therefore the appellant is required to pay total tax @ 2.1% (i.e. Sales Tax @ 1% + turnover tax @ 1% + Surcharge @ 10% of sales tax i.e. @ 0.1%) and not @ 1% as claimed by the appellant ? (2) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law and on facts while rejecting the prayer of the applicant for remission of the interest u/s.36(3)(b) and holding that there is no case for deletion or even for remission of the interest u/s.36(3)(b), since there was no doubt in respect of extent of exemption towards turnover tax and surcharge ?
The reference be forwarded to this Court within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Operative part
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The application is disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959; AI of the Bombay Act — s. 15.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 07 Aug 2009. The bench was D G KARNIK, F I REBELLO.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.