Sales Tax Reference No. 2 of 2009 in Reference Application No. 96 of 2006. Case: The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai Vs M/s. Bajaj Tempo Ltd.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Sales Tax Reference No. 2 of 2009 in Reference Application No. 96 of 2006 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mrs. Uma Palsuledesai, Assistant Government Pleader and For Respondents: Mr. P.C. Joshi, Adv. |
| Judges | S.C. Dharmadhikari and B.P. Colabawalla, JJ. |
| Issue | Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 - Sections 61, 2(22); Customs Act, 1962 |
| Judgement Date | August 23, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
B.P. Colabawalla J.
-
By this Reference, the First Bench of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal at Mumbai (for short, "the MSTT") has referred the following questions of law for a decision of this Court under section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short, "the BST Act"):-
(I) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of the definition of the word 'Purchase Price' in section 2(22) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 read with Explanation-I added to the said definition, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the word 'Purchase Price' referred to in sub-rule 3(a) of rule 41D will not include the amount of Customs Duty paid or payable under the Customs Act, 1962 by the Respondent?
(II) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true and correct interpretation of Explanation-I to section 2(22) added with effect from 1/9/1990 when the sub-clause 2 of sub-rule 3 of Rule 41D specifically provides reduction of 3 % of the purchase price of goods covered under section 75, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the term 'Purchase Price' is applicable only to the purchases effected within the State and is not applicable to the purchases covered by section 75?
-
The real controversy in the present Reference is whether the customs duty paid by the Respondent herein (M/s Bajaj Tempo Ltd.) on goods imported by it from out of the country, and which are used in the manufacture of their vehicles, should be included in the definition of the words "purchase price" as set out in section 2(22) of the BST Act.
-
The brief facts giving rise to the present controversy are that the Respondent herein (M/s Bajaj Tempo Ltd.) is a manufacturer of motor vehicles, especially three-wheelers and parts thereof. It is duly registered under the provisions of the BST Act as also the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, "the CST Act"). The Respondent has its factory in Maharashtra and branches in other States. The vehicles manufactured by the Respondent are sold in and from Maharashtra as also transferred to branches in other States for sale over there.
-
For the financial year 1998-99, the Repondent herein was assessed under the BST Act and which gave rise to an assessment order dated 28th January, 2002 passed by the Senior Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax (Assessment), A-22, Pune Division, Pune. This assessment resulted in a refund of around Rs.15.31 lacs to the Respondent.
-
Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order on various grounds, the Respondent herein filed an Appeal against the same before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeals) 2, Pune Division, Pune. After hearing the parties, the Appellate Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax passed his order dated 23rd July 2003 thereby partly allowing the Appeal filed by the Respondent herein.
-
Still not satisfied with the partial relief granted in the First Appeal, the Respondent herein filed a Second Appeal No.2203 of 2003 before the MSTT. In the Second Appeal filed before the MSTT, three grounds were pressed on behalf of the Respondent herein as more particularly set out in paragraph 4 of the order and judgment dated 10th February, 2006 passed by the MSTT. As...
To continue reading
Request your trial