{"id":14588,"date":"2008-12-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sales-tax-tribunal-bar-vs-s-d-mathane-on-18-december-2008"},"modified":"2018-10-28T07:09:51","modified_gmt":"2018-10-28T01:39:51","slug":"the-sales-tax-tribunal-bar-vs-s-d-mathane-on-18-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sales-tax-tribunal-bar-vs-s-d-mathane-on-18-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"The Sales Tax Tribunal Bar … vs S.D. Mathane on 18 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
The Sales Tax Tribunal Bar … vs S.D. Mathane on 18 December, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: S.A. Bobde<\/div>\n
                        -:   1   :-\n\n          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n            ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n                WRIT PETITION NO.1741 OF 2008\n\n    1.   The Sales Tax Tribunal Bar Association,\n         A Society registered under the Bombay\n\n\n\n\n                                                                      \n         Public Trust Act 1950 constituted of\n         persons practising before Maharashtra\n         Sales Tax Tribunal and having its\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n         Office at Room No.713\/B, Vikrikar\n         Bhavan, Mazgaon, Mumbai--400 020.\n\n    2.   Chandrakant B. Thakar,\n         President, of the Sales Tax Tribunal\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n         Bar Association having his office at\n         Room No.713\/B, Vikrikar Bhavan,\n         Mazgaon, Mumbai--400 010.                    : Petitioners\n\n             V\/s.\n\n\n\n\n                                     \n    1.   S.D. Mathane, Member,\n         Sales Tax Tribunal appointed as\n                      \n         such by order dated 25.6.2008 of\n         Deputy Finance Secretary, Finance\n         Department, Maharashtra and having\n         his office at 7th floor, Vikrikar\n                     \n         Bhavan, Mazgaon, Mumbai--10.\n\n    2.   Nasima M. Shaikh,\n         Deputy Secretary,\n         Finance Department,\n         The State of Maharashtra having\n      \n\n\n         her office at Mantralaya, Madam Cama\n         Road, Mumbai--32.\n   \n\n\n\n    3.   The State of Maharashtra,\n         having its office at Mantralaya,\n         Madam Cama Road, Mumbai--400 032.            : Respondents\n                       ....\n\n\n\n\n\n    Mr.R.V.Desai with Mr.M.M.Vaidya for the petitioners.\n\n    Mr.C.U.Singh with Mr.V.A.Sonpal for respondent no.1.\n\n    Mr.D.A.Nalawade, Government Pleader for resp. nos.2 & 3.\n\n\n\n\n\n                      ....\n                           CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.&\n                                   S.A. BOBDE, J.\n\n                             Date of Reserving      ) : 20.10.2008\n                             the Judgement.         )\n\n\n\n\n                                              ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:09:38 :::\n                             -:    2   :-\n\n                                  Date of Pronouncing) : 18.12.2008\n                                  the Judgement.     )\n\n\n    JUDGEMENT (Per S.A.Bobde, J.)\n<\/pre>\n
    1.    The petitioners have challenged the appointment of the<\/p>\n
    respondent     no.1   Mr.S.D.      Mathane as Member of the                  Sales<\/p>\n
    Tax    Tribunal by an order dated 25.6.2008.                 They seek          the<\/p>\n
    issue of a writ of certiorari calling upon the respondents<\/p>\n
    to     place    the   records       pertaining        to     the        impugned<\/p>\n
    appointment     and   a writ of quo warranto for quashing                       the<\/p>\n
    said    appointment dated 25.6.2008.          The Sales Tax Tribunal<\/p>\n
    to    which the respondent no.1 has been appointed has                         been<\/p>\n
    constituted     under
\n                           igsection       11 of the      Maharashtra            Value<\/p>\n
    Added    Tax   Act, 2002, which has been brought                  into       force<\/p>\n
    from 1.4.2005.     Sub-section (3) of section 11 provides for<\/p>\n
    qualification     and    the terms of office of the members                       of<\/p>\n
    the Tribunal which reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              “(3) The qualifications and the terms of
\n              office of the members of the Tribunal shall
\n              be such as may be prescribed, and a member
\n              shall hold office for such period as may be<\/p>\n
              prescribed or as the State Government may,
\n              by special order in his case, specify.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Qualifications     have      been prescribed under rule 6(1)                    of<\/p>\n
    the MVAT Rules which read as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              “6.   Qualifications of members of Tribunal
\n              and term of office:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:09:38 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                             -:   3    :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (1) Every Member of the Tribunal shall be a
\n                person who,<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                (a) is or     has been a Judge of        the      High
\n                Court, or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                (b) is or has been a District Judge, or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                (c) is qualified for appointment as a
\n                District Judge, and     has held judicial<\/p>\n
                office for not less than ten years, or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                (d) has, for a continuous period of not
\n                less than three years held an office, not
\n                below the rank of Joint Commissioner of<\/p>\n
                Sales tax, in the Sales Tax Department of
\n                the State Government, or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                (e) is a Chartered Accountant and has
\n                practiced as such for not less than seven<\/p>\n
                years, or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                (f) not being a person described in clause<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                (d), has in the opinion of the State
\n                Government,   adequate     knowledge,
\n                experience in accounting, or has in the
\n                                                        or<\/p>\n
                opinion of the State Government, special<\/p>\n
                knowledge or experience in commerce or
\n                industry.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                Explanation:  For the purpose of clause\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (b), the service as a Deputy Commissioner
\n                before   the  appointed   day  shall   be<\/p>\n
                considered for determining the period of
\n                three years.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    2.    It is common ground that the impugned appointments is<\/p>\n
    under clause 6(f) alone.          The thrust of the contention on<\/p>\n
    behalf of the petitioners is that the respondent no.1 did<\/p>\n
    not    have adequate knowledge or experience in               accounting<\/p>\n
    and the Government could not have formed any opinion that<\/p>\n
    he    has    special knowledge and experience in commerce                   or<\/p>\n
    industry      under   clause     6(f).   The respondent         no.1       not<\/p>\n
    being    therefore qualified could not have been                appointed<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:09:38 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                             -:      4    :-\n<\/p>\n
    as    a Member of the Sales Tax Tribunal at all.                       It is not<\/p>\n
    necessary      to go into the qualification of the respondent<\/p>\n
    no.1    with reference to any other clause of rule 6                          since<\/p>\n
    the    Government     has appointed the respondent                   no.1       only<\/p>\n
    under clause 6(f).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
    3.     It must be noted at the outset that whether a person<\/p>\n
    is    qualified for appointment as a Member of the Tribunal<\/p>\n
    is dependant on the opinion of the State Government as to<\/p>\n
    adequate      knowledge,      or     experience        in     accounting           or<\/p>\n
    special      knowledge or experience in commerce or industry,<\/p>\n
    vide    clause 6(f).       It is settled law that words such                       as<\/p>\n
    “in    the<\/p>\n
                  opinion of” or “reason to believe” suggest                          the<\/p>\n
    requirement      of   the authority to arrive at a                   subjective<\/p>\n
    satisfaction.         However, the formation of the opinion has<\/p>\n
    been     considered        to    be    a    process        not       altogether<\/p>\n
    subjective.      It lends itself to a limited scrutiny by the<\/p>\n
    Court    that    such an opinion was not formed                   on     relevant<\/p>\n
    facts    or    within   the restraints of          the        statute,          vide<\/p>\n
    Barium Chemicals Ltd.           v.    Company Law Board (AIR<\/a> 1967 SC<\/p>\n
    295 at page 324.        Therefore, in assessing the validity of<\/p>\n
    an     administrative      act under a law which              provides          that<\/p>\n
    certain       thing   shall     be done “if in the opinion                  of”      a<\/p>\n
    certain authority certain circumstances exist, an inquiry<\/p>\n
    by     the    Court must be directed to whether                  the     opinion,<\/p>\n
    apart     from being bona fide, is based on the existence of<\/p>\n
    relevant       objective     facts.        Once such objective fact                or<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:09:38 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                 -:      5   :-\n<\/p>\n
    material       is    shown to exist, then the opinion formed                       by<\/p>\n
    the    authority         would not be liable to question i.e.                      to<\/p>\n
    say    it     would      not    be open for the      Court        to     consider<\/p>\n
    whether the authority has come to the conclusion which it<\/p>\n
    would    come to itself, or whether the conclusion is                           what<\/p>\n
    any    other person would have arrived at as long as it                            is<\/p>\n
    not    an     opinion which was impossible to be                  arrived         at.<\/p>\n
    The    extent of intervention under such provision has been<\/p>\n
    indicated       in the following passage quoted with                     approval<\/p>\n
    by J.S.Verma,J.            in S.R.Bommai v.        Union of India<\/a> [(1994)<\/p>\n
    3 SCC 1]:-\n<\/p>\n
                 “Where the existence or non-existence of a
\n                 fact is left to the judgment and discretion
\n                 of a public body and that fact involves a
\n                 broad spectrum ranging from the obvious to<\/p>\n
                 the debatable to the just conceivable, it
\n                 is the duty of the court to leave the
\n                 decision of that fact to the public body to
\n                 whom   Parliament    has     entrusted   the
\n                 decision-making power save in a case where
\n                 it is obvious that       the public    body,<\/p>\n
                 consciously or unconsciously, are acting
\n                 perversely.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    With    this,        the    formation of the opinion by                the    State<\/p>\n
    Government may be examined.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
    4.    At the relevant time, the respondent no.1 was a Joint<\/p>\n
    Commissioner of Sales Tax which is equivalent to the post<\/p>\n
    of    Deputy        Secretary       and was appointed in          the      Finance<\/p>\n
    Department          as   a Deputy Secretary.         He had,        apart       from<\/p>\n
    long        experience         in   the      Department,      three          years’<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:09:38 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                             -:    6   :-\n<\/p>\n
    experience      as Deputy Secretary.       At the outset, it             must<\/p>\n
    be    stated that the Government has formed its opinion                     on<\/p>\n
    the    basis    that the 1st respondent has been working                   for<\/p>\n
    about three years on the post of Deputy Secretary and has<\/p>\n
    selected      him,   considering his deep study of            Sales        Tax<\/p>\n
    laws    and    long experience in dealing with the same.                    In<\/p>\n
    the meeting of the Selection Committee held on 26.5.2008,<\/p>\n
    the    respondent     no.1’s candidature was considered                along<\/p>\n
    with that of two other departmental candidates who had no<\/p>\n
    experience of working on the legal side.             The question is<\/p>\n
    whether    the    Government      could have   validly        formed        an<\/p>\n
    opinion    under     clause 6(f) that the respondent no.1                  has<\/p>\n
    special<\/p>\n
               knowledge or experience in commerce or industry.<\/p>\n
    Even    though it is true that the Selection Committee,                     in<\/p>\n
    its    minutes referred to the deep study of Sales Tax laws<\/p>\n
    and    long    experience     in dealing with the        same       without<\/p>\n
    expressly referring to the respondent no.1’s knowledge or<\/p>\n
    experience      in   commerce or industry, the         Committee           has<\/p>\n
    made it clear that the selection is under rule 6(f).                       The<\/p>\n
    learned       counsel   for    the     petitioner      submits           that<\/p>\n
    non-mentioning       of experience or knowledge in commerce or<\/p>\n
    industry      in the minutes of the meeting of the              Selection<\/p>\n
    Committee was sufficient to show that the respondent no.1<\/p>\n
    is    not qualified.     We have examined the various               notings<\/p>\n
    which    show    that the various officers who processed                   the<\/p>\n
    file,    in fact, considered the knowledge of the candidate<\/p>\n
    in    regard    to industry and commerce.       From the file,              it<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:09:38 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                              -:    7    :-\n<\/p>\n
    appears    that     an   adequate appraisal of           the      respondent<\/p>\n
    no.1’s    qualifications to hold the post has been made                         at<\/p>\n
    every    stage.      The    respondent        no.1’s    application            was<\/p>\n
    received     and    appraised       by the Desk     Officer         who      also<\/p>\n
    appraised     the    applications        of     other    candidates.              A<\/p>\n
    reference     was    made     to a    Government       Resolution          which<\/p>\n
    provides     that    persons who have worked for a minimum                      of<\/p>\n
    two   years in the legal branch should be given preference<\/p>\n
    for   appointment.       Thereafter, it was suggested that                     the<\/p>\n
    Sales-tax     Department       be    asked to certify          whether         the<\/p>\n
    respondent     no.1 had knowledge of accounts and                   commerce.<\/p>\n
    On    this    the    Finance        Secretary     made     the      following<\/p>\n
    observations:-\n<\/p>\n
              “‘X’ may be approved.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              2.   Shri Mathane’s record is outstanding.
\n              He has extremely good knowledge of sales<\/p>\n
              tax, VAT Laws and accounts.    Accordingly,
\n              he was especially chosen      to work    in<\/p>\n
              Mantralaya first as O.S.D. (but given DS
\n              level work taxation) and      then as    DS
\n              (taxation\/VAT) where he was promoted as Jt.
\n              Commissioner level in the Department.    He
\n              is still working in the F.D.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              3.    In view of the above ‘x’ is put up for
\n              approval, so that Shri Mathane could be
\n              considered for appointment as a member on
\n              Sales    Tax Tribunal.    He is     eminently
\n              qualified      to         discharge      that<\/p>\n
              responsibility.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                   Sd\/-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                  8\/5\/08″<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                                               Finance Secretary\n\n\n\n\n                                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:09:38 :::<\/span>\n                                -:    8    :-\n\n<\/pre>\n
    5.     It appears that it is on the basis of the above that<\/p>\n
    the    Government formed the opinion that he had sufficient<\/p>\n
    knowledge      and experience in commerce and industry within<\/p>\n
    the    meaning    of rule 6(f).            The Government is          conscious<\/p>\n
    that it has made the appointment under rule 6(f).                          We are<\/p>\n
    not    inclined to set it aside because the Minutes of                           the<\/p>\n
    Selection      Committee        do    not reflect the words             of     rule<\/p>\n
    6(f),    particularly        since      knowledge     or     experience           in<\/p>\n
    commerce       and    industry        is    allied    to     the      key        and<\/p>\n
    implementation        of    Sales      Tax laws.     The     knowledge           and<\/p>\n
    experience      of commerce and industry contemplated by rule<\/p>\n
    6(f)    does    not    appear        to be that of      a    trader        or     an<\/p>\n
    industrialist as the scheme of the Rules does not suggest<\/p>\n
    such an appointment.            We find from the notings that there<\/p>\n
    was    sufficient      material before the Government                   to     form<\/p>\n
    such    an    opinion      which indeed is a         subjective           opinion<\/p>\n
    based    on    the    career      graph and the       abilities           of     the<\/p>\n
    candidate.       It is, therefore, not possible to accept the<\/p>\n
    argument      on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent<\/p>\n
    no.1    was clearly disqualified.              In such a case, even               if<\/p>\n
    it    is pointed out that there are certain                  contradictions<\/p>\n
    in    the affidavit of the Government and the office files,<\/p>\n
    we    are    of view that such an appointment should                      not     be<\/p>\n
    lightly      interfered      with on such grounds provided it                     is<\/p>\n
    found that the Government formed its opinion on the basis<\/p>\n
    of    consideration of relevant material.                 The office           file<\/p>\n
    shows    that the question of the appointment was processed<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:09:38 :::<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                               -:    9    :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    at    various     stages of the Department.              The initial            note<\/p>\n
    was    put   up    by the Desk Officer.          The matter            was      then<\/p>\n
    referred      to    the    Law      &    Judiciary     Department             which<\/p>\n
    eventually gave an opinion.               The issue was then forwarded<\/p>\n
    to    the Principal Secretary (Finance) and the entire file<\/p>\n
    was thereafter put up before a High Power Committee under<\/p>\n
    the    chairmanship of the Chief Secretary and Addl.                          Chief<\/p>\n
    Secretary     (Finance)        and      Principal      Secretary           (Law      &<\/p>\n
    Judiciary).        The    recommendation        of       the      High        Power<\/p>\n
    Committee     had    been      accorded sanction           by     the      Finance<\/p>\n
    Minister and the Chief Minister.               We find no merit in the<\/p>\n
    challenge to the appointment of the respondent no.1.\n<\/p>\n
    6.        Writ Petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                                        CHIEF JUSTICE<\/p>\n
                                                             Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                                        S.A. BOBDE, J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:09:38 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court The Sales Tax Tribunal Bar … vs S.D. Mathane on 18 December, 2008 Bench: S.A. Bobde -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1741 OF 2008 1. The Sales Tax Tribunal Bar Association, A Society registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14588","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Sales Tax Tribunal Bar ... vs S.D. Mathane on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sales-tax-tribunal-bar-vs-s-d-mathane-on-18-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Sales Tax Tribunal Bar ... vs S.D. Mathane on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sales-tax-tribunal-bar-vs-s-d-mathane-on-18-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-28T01:39:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sales-tax-tribunal-bar-vs-s-d-mathane-on-18-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sales-tax-tribunal-bar-vs-s-d-mathane-on-18-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Sales Tax Tribunal Bar … vs S.D. Mathane on 18 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-28T01:39:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sales-tax-tribunal-bar-vs-s-d-mathane-on-18-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1803,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sales-tax-tribunal-bar-vs-s-d-mathane-on-18-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sales-tax-tribunal-bar-vs-s-d-mathane-on-18-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sales-tax-tribunal-bar-vs-s-d-mathane-on-18-december-2008\",\"name\":\"The Sales Tax Tribunal Bar ... vs S.D. Mathane on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-28T01:39:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sales-tax-tribunal-bar-vs-s-d-mathane-on-18-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sales-tax-tribunal-bar-vs-s-d-mathane-on-18-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-sales-tax-tribunal-bar-vs-s-d-mathane-on-18-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Sales Tax Tribunal Bar … vs S.D. Mathane on 18 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Sales Tax Tribunal Bar ... vs S.D. Mathane on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sales-tax-tribunal-bar-vs-s-d-mathane-on-18-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Sales Tax Tribunal Bar ... vs S.D. Mathane on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sales-tax-tribunal-bar-vs-s-d-mathane-on-18-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-28T01:39:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sales-tax-tribunal-bar-vs-s-d-mathane-on-18-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sales-tax-tribunal-bar-vs-s-d-mathane-on-18-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Sales Tax Tribunal Bar … vs S.D. Mathane on 18 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-28T01:39:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sales-tax-tribunal-bar-vs-s-d-mathane-on-18-december-2008"},"wordCount":1803,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sales-tax-tribunal-bar-vs-s-d-mathane-on-18-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sales-tax-tribunal-bar-vs-s-d-mathane-on-18-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sales-tax-tribunal-bar-vs-s-d-mathane-on-18-december-2008","name":"The Sales Tax Tribunal Bar ... vs S.D. Mathane on 18 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-28T01:39:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sales-tax-tribunal-bar-vs-s-d-mathane-on-18-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sales-tax-tribunal-bar-vs-s-d-mathane-on-18-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-sales-tax-tribunal-bar-vs-s-d-mathane-on-18-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Sales Tax Tribunal Bar … vs S.D. Mathane on 18 December, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14588","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14588"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14588\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14588"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14588"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14588"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}