The Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State v. M/s. Blue Cross Laboratories Limited
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Admittedly, the above question is covered by the judgment and order of this court (D.K. Deshmukh & J.P. Devadhar, JJ.) dated 13/10/2008 passed in Sales Tax Application No.8 of 2007 in Reference Application No.90 of 2001 (The Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s. Pec…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SALES TAX APPLICATION NO.101 OF 2008 IN REFERENCE APPLICATION NO.48 OF 2008 The Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State. .... Applicant Vs. M/s. Blue Cross Laboratories Limited .... Respondents Mr. V.A. Sonpal, AGP for the applicant. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C. :-
In this application, the following question of law is raised. “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of the 1993 Package Scheme of Incentives, and in Rule 31 B of Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 the Tribunal was justified in law, in holding that the respondent dealer was entitled for 100% AJN 2 deferral of its tax liability payable under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959?
Admittedly, the above question is covered by the judgment and order of this court (D.K. Deshmukh & J.P. Devadhar, JJ.) dated 13/10/2008 passed in Sales Tax Application No.8 of 2007 in Reference Application No.90 of 2001 (The Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s. Pec Vee Textile Ltd.) and is answered against the Revenue. In view of this, the present application will have to be dismissed and is dismissed as such. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.]
[J.P. DEVADHAR, J.]
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 12 Feb 2009. The bench was P DEVADHAR, RANJANA DESAI.
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.