The Commissioner of Sales Tax v. M/s Typewriter & O.E. Agency
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ss. 3(2), 61
Judgment
Mr. K.B. Choudhari, AGP for the appellant. ===== CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 12th JANUARY, 2011 PER COURT : 1 Heard learned AGP for the applicant. This reference is made under section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, by the Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, Camp at Aurangabad. In this reference, following question is referred to this court for decision :
Whether on a true and correct interpretation of section 3(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, read with the proviso thereto, the liability of a dealer to pay tax thereunder arises on the 1st day of April of the year during which his turnover, either of sales or purchases, exceeds the prescribed limits, or on the date on which 2 str5.05 the turnover so exceeds ?
2 The reference was received and registered by this court in 1978 itself. Since then till this date, despite several efforts made by the applicant, the respondents have not been served. Learned AGP on instructions from the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, who is present in the Court, submits that the respondent – firm, in this reference application, does not exist as on today. 3 Keeping that in view and considering the order of reference dated 7th February, 1975 so also the order dated 2nd July 1971, passed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Camp at Aurangabad, we do not deem it appropriate to keep this reference application pending any further and dispose it of for non-prosecution, keeping the question that was referred to this court open, to be considered in appropriate reference application / proceedings. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE ( D.B. BHOSALE ) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 — ss. 3(2), 61.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 12 Jan 2011. The bench was R M BORDE, D B BHOSALE.
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.