{"id":252786,"date":"2010-04-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-20-april-2010"},"modified":"2016-03-29T17:13:25","modified_gmt":"2016-03-29T11:43:25","slug":"the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-20-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-20-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"The State Of Maharashtra vs M\/S.Bharat Petroleum … on 20 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
The State Of Maharashtra vs M\/S.Bharat Petroleum … on 20 April, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.P. Devadhar<\/div>\n
                                               1\n\n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                           APPELLATE SIDE\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                            \n                         WRIT PETITION NO.4098 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n    The State of Maharashtra.                                 ...Petitioner.\n                            Vs.\n    M\/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.& Anr.               ...Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n                                    ....\n    Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni,   Spl.   Counsel   with  Mr.   V.A.Sonpal       for   the \n    Petitioner.\n    Mr.S.P.Surte for Respondent No.1.\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n    Mr.R.A. Dada, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Milind Sathe, Sr.Advocate and \n    Mr.B.C.Jshi,  Mr.  P.S.Jaitley  and  Mr.Zuber  Dada i\/b.   A.S.Dagal   & \n                                    \n    Asso. for Respondent No.2.\n                                    .....\n                                    CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND \n                                   \n                                            J.P.DEVADHAR,  JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                                  April 20, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.) :\n<\/p>\n
                 In   these   proceedings   under   Article   226<\/a>   of   the <\/p>\n
    Constitution, the issue which falls for determination is whether an <\/p>\n
    appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax <\/p>\n
    under   Section   52   of   the   Bombay   Sales   Tax   Act,   1959,   is <\/p>\n
    maintainable   under   Section   55(1)(c),   at   the   behest   of   the   State <\/p>\n
    Government, to the Tribunal.    The Sales Tax Tribunal has, by its <\/p>\n
    decision   dated   30   June   2008   come   to   the   conclusion   that   the <\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
    appeal filed by the State was not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
    2.          Since the question of law which has been urged in the <\/p>\n
    Petition raises a question of interpretation, only a brief reference to <\/p>\n
    the facts would be necessary in order to appreciate  the background <\/p>\n
    in   which   the   dispute   between   the   parties   has   arisen.     The   First <\/p>\n
    Respondent,   Bharat   Petroleum   Corporation   Ltd.,   entered   into   an <\/p>\n
    agreement   on   24   August   1992   with   the   Second   Respondent, <\/p>\n
    Reliance  Industries  Ltd.,   for the supply of Linear Alkyl Benzene <\/p>\n
    Feed Stock (LABFS) through a pipe line from the refinery at Mahul <\/p>\n
    to   the   petro   chemical   plant   of   the   Second   Respondent   at <\/p>\n
    Patalganga.     LABFS   is   raw   material   for   the   manufacture   of   N-\n<\/p>\n
    Paraffin.   N-Paraffin is extracted by the Second Respondent at its <\/p>\n
    plant   from   the   LABFS   supplied   by   the   First   Respondent.     Upon <\/p>\n
    extraction,   the   residue   is   returned   to   the   First   Respondent   in   a <\/p>\n
    ‘return stream’.   On   21 April 1992 the First Respondent filed an <\/p>\n
    application   to   the   Commissioner   of   Sales   Tax   and   sought   a <\/p>\n
    determination   under   Section   52   on   whether   the   product   in <\/p>\n
    question, had been correctly classified under Entry C-I-26(1) of the <\/p>\n
    Schedule   to   the   Bombay   Sales   Tax   Act,   1959   and   whether   the <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                            3<\/span><\/p>\n
    return stream despatched by the Second Respondent to the First <\/p>\n
    Respondent   constituted   a   “sales   return”.     The   Commissioner   of <\/p>\n
    Sales Tax  by a determination dated 14 March 1996 held inter alia <\/p>\n
    that what was returned back by the Second Respondent (RIL) to <\/p>\n
    the  First  Respondent  (BPCL)    did  not  constitute  goods  returned, <\/p>\n
    but was a purchase of kerosene by the First Respondent.  Evidently, <\/p>\n
    the basis of such a  determination would be that what is supplied <\/p>\n
    by the First  Respondent  is LABFS  which contains  N-paraffin  and <\/p>\n
    what   goes   back   to   the   First   Respondent   does   not   contain   the <\/p>\n
    material which is extracted by the Second Respondent at its plant.\n<\/p>\n
    The   proceedings   were   eventually   remanded   back   to   the <\/p>\n
    Commissioner by an order, of a Division Bench of this Court, dated <\/p>\n
    18 February  2003 and the Commissioner  was directed to decide <\/p>\n
    whether the return stream, namely, return of kerosene by RIL to <\/p>\n
    BPCL  would  be legally allowable  as a sales  return or  whether it <\/p>\n
    would   amount   to   a   return   of   kerosene   by   BPCL   to   RIL.     Upon <\/p>\n
    remand,   the   Commissioner   by   his   order   dated   6   October   2004 <\/p>\n
    came   to   the   conclusion   that   LABFS   supplied   by   the   First <\/p>\n
    Respondent   to   the   Second   Respondent     and   return   stream   were <\/p>\n
    two different goods and that consequently, what was supplied back <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
    did not qualify as a sales return in accordance with Rule 4 of the <\/p>\n
    Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959.  Once again there was an order of <\/p>\n
    remand,   this   time   by   the   Tribunal   on   12   August   2005.       Upon <\/p>\n
    remand, the Commissioner by his order dated 11 September 2006 <\/p>\n
    held that the return stream, after the extraction of N-Paraffin out of <\/p>\n
    the   original   supply   of   LABFS,   was   legally   allowable   as   a   sales <\/p>\n
    return   and  would   not   amount   to   a  purchase   of  kerosene   by   the <\/p>\n
    First Respondent from the Second Respondent.   This order of the <\/p>\n
    Commissioner   was   questioned   by   the   State   Government   in   an <\/p>\n
    appeal   before   the   Tribunal   under   Section   55   of   the   Act.       The <\/p>\n
    Tribunal   by   its   judgment   dated   30   June   2008   came   to   the <\/p>\n
    conclusion   that   an   appeal   by   the   State   against   the   order   of   the <\/p>\n
    Commissioner   on   a   decision   under   Section   52   was   not <\/p>\n
    maintainable.   The appeal has been dismissed only on the ground <\/p>\n
    of maintainability.   The State of Maharashtra has instituted these <\/p>\n
    proceedings   under   Article   226<\/a>   of   the   Constitution   and   the <\/p>\n
    correctness   of   the   order   passed   by   the   Tribunal   now   falls   for <\/p>\n
    determination before the Court.\n<\/p>\n
    3.          In   assailing   the   order   passed   by   the   Commissioner, <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
    Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that (i) Section <\/p>\n
    55(1)(c) is neutrally worded   and provides an appeal from every <\/p>\n
    original order, not being an order mentioned in Section 56, passed <\/p>\n
    under the Act or the Rules by the Commissioner, to the Tribunal;\n<\/p>\n
    (ii)   The   Commissioner,   when   he   makes   a   determination   of   a <\/p>\n
    disputed   question   under   Section   52,   exercises     quasi   judicial <\/p>\n
    powers in the exercise of which he is independent of the State and <\/p>\n
    the State exercises no control directly or indirectly on the exercise <\/p>\n
    of those powers; (iii) The observations contained in a judgment of <\/p>\n
    a Division Bench of this Court in  Amar Dye Chem Ltd. vs. The <\/p>\n
    State of Maharashtra<\/a>,1  are passing observations and the question <\/p>\n
    which arises in the present appeal did not arise in the reference <\/p>\n
    made to the High Court in that case under Section 61; (iv)  It is a <\/p>\n
    settled   principle   of   law   that   a   judgment   in   a   reference   under <\/p>\n
    Section   61   is   in   the   nature   of   an   advisory   opinion   rendered   on <\/p>\n
    specific questions of law which are referred for the decision of the <\/p>\n
    High Court   and a question of law which was not referred to the <\/p>\n
    Court cannot be regarded as arising out of the order of reference;\n<\/p>\n
    (v) The scheme of the Bombay Sales Tax Act,1959 would clearly <\/p>\n
    1 (1983) 53 STC 14 (Bom)<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
    establish that the powers which are exercised by the Commissioner, <\/p>\n
    upon   his   appointment   under   Section   20(1)   are   those   which   are <\/p>\n
    conferred   by   the   Act.     The   decision   of   the   Commissioner   is   not <\/p>\n
    necessarily   the   decision   of   the   State.     Under   Section   52,   the <\/p>\n
    Commissioner   discharges   a   quasi   judicial   duty     imposed   by   the <\/p>\n
    legislation and does not perform an executive act.  The decision of <\/p>\n
    the Commissioner under Section 52 is, therefore, not a decision of <\/p>\n
    the State; (vi) An appeal by the State, which has a vital interest in <\/p>\n
    the   collection   of   revenue   would   be   maintainable   under   Section <\/p>\n
    55(1)(c)   against   the   decision   of   the   Commissioner;   (vii)   The <\/p>\n
    Tribunal has manifestly erred in equating the role and position of <\/p>\n
    the Commissioner as a quasi judicial authority with the position of <\/p>\n
    the State under the Act.  The basis of the judgment of the Tribunal <\/p>\n
    is hence, flawed.\n<\/p>\n
    4.          On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the <\/p>\n
    First Respondent  by Counsel that (i) Tax legislation contemplates <\/p>\n
    a distinction between statutory provisions relating to the charge of <\/p>\n
    tax   and   those   relating   to   assessment,   remedies   and   recovery   of <\/p>\n
    revenue; (ii) The assessment of tax under   Sales Tax legislation is <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                               7<\/span><\/p>\n
    done   by   the   Commissioner   or   by   his   subordinates.     The <\/p>\n
    Commissioner protects the interests of the revenue and of the State <\/p>\n
    and   he   has   no   independent   interest   of   his   own;   (iii)   Powers   of <\/p>\n
    reassessment, revision and of imposing penalties, amongst others, <\/p>\n
    are   vested   in   the   Commissioner;   (iv)   Under   the   Act   the <\/p>\n
    Commissioner   is   a   representative   of   the   Government,   the   object <\/p>\n
    being   to protect the interests of the State; (v) If the logic of the <\/p>\n
    State Government that it can file an appeal against an order passed <\/p>\n
    by the Commissioner under Section 52 to the Tribunal is held to be <\/p>\n
    correct, that would mean that an appeal can be filed by the State <\/p>\n
    against   an   order   passed   by   the   Sales   Tax   Officer.       Sufficient <\/p>\n
    powers   have   been   given   to   the   Commissioner   to   make   a <\/p>\n
    reassessment  or   to exercise  revisional  jurisdiction   under  the  Act;\n<\/p>\n
    (vi) The State has no independent interest except to ensure that the <\/p>\n
    provisions   of   the   Act   are   implemented   and   that   tax   is   properly <\/p>\n
    collected.  The Commissioner is expected to protect the interests of <\/p>\n
    the   State;   (vii)   The   provisions   of   the   Act,     must   result   in   the <\/p>\n
    inference that even if Section 55 is facially neutral, an appeal by <\/p>\n
    the State Government against an order of the Commissioner is not <\/p>\n
    contemplated;   (viii)   The   interpretation   which   is   sought   to   be <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
    placed on the provisions of the Act is buttressed by relying on  the <\/p>\n
    provisions  of  the Rules  and forms prescribed for the filing of an <\/p>\n
    appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    5.           The   publication   of   the   Government   of   Maharashtra <\/p>\n
    suffers   from   a   printing   error   in   Section   55(1)(c).     As   would   be <\/p>\n
    noted   in   greater   detail   later,   Section   55(1)(c)   provides   that   an <\/p>\n
    appeal from every original order, not being an order as set out in <\/p>\n
    Section   56,   shall   lie   “if   the   order   is   made   by   the   Deputy <\/p>\n
    Commissioner,   Additional   Commissioner   or   Commissioner   to   the <\/p>\n
    Tribunal”.     The   Bombay   Government   Gazette   of   28   September <\/p>\n
    1959   in   which   the   Act   has   been   initially   published,   specifically <\/p>\n
    makes   the   aforesaid   provision   which   contemplates   an   appeal <\/p>\n
    against   the   decision   of   the   Commissioner   to   the   Tribunal.     The <\/p>\n
    same provision continued in subsequent publications of the State <\/p>\n
    Government, there being no amendment to Section 55(1)(c), in so <\/p>\n
    far   as   it   provides   for   an   appeal   against   an   original   order   of   the <\/p>\n
    Commissioner   to   the   Tribunal.     The   deletion   of   the   words   “or <\/p>\n
    Commissioner”   in   the   version   of   the   Act   published   by   the   State <\/p>\n
    Government is, therefore, an obvious printing error.   The Petition <\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
    has been argued by all the Counsel on that basis, upon verification <\/p>\n
    that this is a printing error and that the aforesaid provision has not <\/p>\n
    been altered by the legislature.\n<\/p>\n
    6.          The   salient   provisions   of   the   Act   and   the   statutory <\/p>\n
    scheme  must be elucidated.    Section  2(7) defines the expression <\/p>\n
    “Commissioner”   to   mean     the   person   appointed   to   be   the <\/p>\n
    Commissioner of Sales Tax for the purposes of the Act.  Clause (11) <\/p>\n
    of   section  2  defines   the  expression  “dealer”  to  mean  any person <\/p>\n
    who whether for commission, remuneration or otherwise carries on <\/p>\n
    the business of buying or selling goods in the State, and includes <\/p>\n
    the Central Government, or any State Government which carries on <\/p>\n
    such   business,   and  also   any  society,   club   or   other  association   of <\/p>\n
    persons   which   buys   goods   from   or   sells   goods   to,   its   members.\n<\/p>\n
    The   expression   “State”   is   defined   in   clause   (31)   of   Section   2   to <\/p>\n
    mean the State of Maharashtra.   The incidence and levy of tax is <\/p>\n
    provided   in   Chapter   II   and   under   Section   3(1)   a   dealer   whose <\/p>\n
    turnover either of all sales or of all purchases exceeds the   limit <\/p>\n
    prescribed is liable to pay tax under the Act on his turnover of sales <\/p>\n
    and   turnover   of   purchases   made   on   or   after   the   notified   day.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                            10<\/span><\/p>\n
    Chapter III provides for the constitution of sales tax authorities and <\/p>\n
    the   Tribunal.     Sub-section   (1)   of   Section   20   provides   that   for <\/p>\n
    carrying out the purposes of the Act, the State Government shall <\/p>\n
    appoint   an   officer   to   be   called   the   Commissioner   of   Sales   Tax.\n<\/p>\n
    Under   Sub-section   (2)   the   State   Government   is   similarly   vested <\/p>\n
    with the power  to appoint Additional Commissioners of Sales Tax <\/p>\n
    and other subordinate officers.   By Sub-section (3) of Section 20, <\/p>\n
    the Commissioner has jurisdiction over the whole of the State of <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra,   while   an   Additional   Commissioner   has   also <\/p>\n
    jurisdiction   over   the   whole   of   the   State   or,   where   the   State <\/p>\n
    Government   so   directs,   over   any   local   area   thereof.     The <\/p>\n
    jurisdiction of the other officers is over such local areas as the State <\/p>\n
    Government may specify.    Sub-section (4) of Section 20 provides <\/p>\n
    that the Commissioner shall have and exercise all the powers and <\/p>\n
    perform all the duties, conferred or imposed on the Commissioner <\/p>\n
    by   or   under   the   Act.       An   Additional   Commissioner   save   as <\/p>\n
    otherwise   directed   by   the   State   Government,   can exercise the<\/p>\n
    jurisdiction conferred upon the Commissioner.              By sub-section (7)<\/p>\n
    the   State   Government   is   empowered   to   delegate   to   the <\/p>\n
    Commissioner   the   powers   conferred   upon   it   by   sub-sections   (2) <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                            11<\/span><\/p>\n
    and   (3),   other   than   for   the   appointment   of   Additional <\/p>\n
    Commissioners or Deputy Commissioners.  The constitution of the <\/p>\n
    Tribunal is provided for in Section 20.\n<\/p>\n
    7.          Chapter IV of the Act deals with registrations, licences, <\/p>\n
    authorizations, recognitions and permits.   In several provisions of <\/p>\n
    the   Act,   powers   have   been   vested   in   the   Commissioner   of   Sales <\/p>\n
    Tax. These include  inter alia the power to refuse an authorization <\/p>\n
    (Section 27); and to cancel or suspend an authorization (Section <\/p>\n
    28).     Chapter   V   of   the   Act   provides   for   returns,   assessment, <\/p>\n
    payment, penalty, recovery and refund of tax.   The Commissioner <\/p>\n
    is conferred with the power to make an assessment of taxes under <\/p>\n
    Section 33.  In certain situations, the Commissioner is empowered <\/p>\n
    to   issue   directions   not   to   proceed   with   the   assessment   of   a <\/p>\n
    particular dealer or class of dealers for a particular period if the <\/p>\n
    assessment   involves   a   decision   of   a   point   which   is   concluded <\/p>\n
    against the State by a judgment of the Tribunal or the High Court <\/p>\n
    and   the   State   Government   or   the   Commissioner   have   initiated <\/p>\n
    proceedings  against such a judgment before an appropriate forum.\n<\/p>\n
    The power to reassess, where there is reason to believe that any <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                      12<\/span><\/p>\n
    turnover of sales or purchases has escaped assessment  is vested in <\/p>\n
    the   Commissioner   under   Section 35.      The Commissioner is<\/p>\n
    empowered to impose a penalty for the contravention of Section 37<\/p>\n
    and to issue orders in the nature of garnishee orders under Section <\/p>\n
    39.<\/p>\n
    8.        In this background now it is necessary to advert to the<\/p>\n
    provisions of Section 52.   Sub-section (1) of Section 52 empowers <\/p>\n
    the Commissioner to determine a question which arises, otherwise <\/p>\n
    than in proceedings before a Court or before the Commissioner has <\/p>\n
    commenced assessment or reassessment of a dealer under Section <\/p>\n
    33 or 35, whether, for the purposes of the Act:\n<\/p>\n
              “(a) any person, society, club or association or any firm
\n              or any branch or department of any firm, is a dealer, or <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              (b) any particular thing done to any goods amounts to or <\/p>\n
              results in the manufacture of goods, within the meaning
\n              of that term, or <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              (c) any transaction is a sale or purchase, or where it is a <\/p>\n
              sale or purchase the sale price or the purchase price, as
\n              the case may be, therefor, or <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              (d) any particular dealer is required to be registered, or <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              (e) in the case of any person or dealer liable to pay tax,
\n              any tax is payable by such person or dealer in respect of
\n              any particular sale or purchase, or if tax is payable the
\n              rate thereof.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                          13<\/span><\/p>\n
    In discharging the   functions conferred   by or under the Act, the <\/p>\n
    Commissioner under Section 53 has  all the powers of a Civil Court <\/p>\n
    for the purpose of (a) Proof of facts by affidavit; (b) Summoning <\/p>\n
    and enforcing the attendance of any person, and examining him on <\/p>\n
    oath or affirmation; (c) Compelling the production of documents;\n<\/p>\n
    and   (d)   Issuing   commissions   for   the   examination   of   witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
    Section 55 of the Act provides for appeals and reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
               “55. (1) An appeal from every original order, not being <\/p>\n
               an order mentioned in section 56 passed under this Act
\n               or the rules made thereunder shall lie-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (a) if the order is made by a Sales Tax Officer, or any <\/p>\n
               other   officer   subordinate   thereto,   to   the   Assistant
\n               Commissioner;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (b) if the order is made by an Assistant Commissioner, to
\n               the Deputy Commissioner;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (c)   if   the   order   is   made   by   a   Deputy   Commissioner,
\n               additional   Commissioner   or   Commissioner   to   the
\n               Tribunal.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    Sub-section (3) of Section 55 provides that every order passed in <\/p>\n
    appeal under the Section shall, subject to the provisions of Sections <\/p>\n
    57, 61 and 62 be final.   Sub-section (4) provides a limitation of <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                               14<\/span><\/p>\n
    sixty   days   from   the   date   of   the   communication   of   the   order <\/p>\n
    appealed against for the filing of an appeal.   Section 59 provides <\/p>\n
    that   in   computing   the   period   of   limitation,   the   provisions   of <\/p>\n
    Sections 4<\/a> and 12<\/a> of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall, so far as may <\/p>\n
    be, apply.  Sub-section (5) of Section 55<\/a> inter alia provides that an <\/p>\n
    appeal against an order of assessment with or without penalty, or <\/p>\n
    interest   or   against   an   order   imposing   a   penalty,   or   interest,   or <\/p>\n
    against an order directing the forfeiture of any tax collected by a <\/p>\n
    dealer,   shall   not   ordinarily   be   entertained   by   an   appellate <\/p>\n
    authority,   unless   it   is   accompanied   by   satisfactory   proof   of   the <\/p>\n
    payment of the tax with or without penalty, or interest, or as the <\/p>\n
    case   may   be,   of   the   payment   of   the   penalty,   or   interest,   or   the <\/p>\n
    amount   forfeited.   The   Appellate   Authority   is  permitted   to   waive <\/p>\n
    this requirement for reasons to be recorded in writing.   Under sub-\n<\/p>\n
    section   (6),   the   Appellate   Authority   both   in     first   and   second <\/p>\n
    appeals   has   the   power   (a)   In   an   appeal   against   an   order   of <\/p>\n
    assessment to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment, <\/p>\n
    or set it aside and refer the case back to the assessing authority for <\/p>\n
    making a fresh assessment;   (b) In an appeal against an order of <\/p>\n
    imposing a penalty or interest to confirm, cancel or vary the order <\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                              15<\/span><\/p>\n
    so as to enhance or reduce the penalty or interest; and (c) in any <\/p>\n
    other case to pass such orders in the appeal as it deems just and <\/p>\n
    necessary.  Certain orders are made non-appealable under Section <\/p>\n
    56.     These   orders   include   a   notice   issued   under   the   Act   calling <\/p>\n
    upon   a   dealer   for   an   assessment   or   to   show   cause   against <\/p>\n
    prosecution,   orders   pertaining   to   the   seizure   or   retention   of <\/p>\n
    documents,   orders   sanctioning   prosecution   and   other   orders   as <\/p>\n
    specifically provided.  Section 56<\/a> provides as follows :\n<\/p>\n
                “56.   No appeal and no application for revision shall lie <\/p>\n
                against-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                -(1)  a notice issued under this Act, calling upon a dealer
\n                for  assessment  or  asking  a  dealer  to  show  cause  as  to <\/p>\n
                why he should not be prosecuted for an offence under
\n                this act, or notices issued under any of the provision of <\/p>\n
                section   38B<\/a>   of   this   act,   or   notice   or   any   order   issued
\n                under the provisions of section 39-1A<\/a> or <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                -(1A)     Orders   issued   by   the   Commissioner   under   the
\n                third proviso to sub-section (4A) of section 33<\/a>, or <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                -(2)   an   order   pertaining   to  the   seizure   or   retention   of
\n                account books, registers and other documents, or <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                -(2A)  any order  issued under sub-section(1)  of section
\n                53<\/a>, or <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                -(3) an order sanctioning a prosecution under this act, or <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                -(4) an order ……… under section 70<\/a>.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                              16<\/span><\/p>\n
    9.           Section   57<\/a>   of   the   Act   empowers   the   Commissioner, <\/p>\n
    subject to Section 56<\/a>, to call for and examine the record of his own <\/p>\n
    motion, or any order passed (including an order passed in appeal) <\/p>\n
    under the Act or the rules by any officer or person subordinate to <\/p>\n
    him and to pass such orders thereon as he thinks just and proper.\n<\/p>\n
    Prior to its amendment by Maharashtra Act 24 of 1990, Section 57<\/a> <\/p>\n
    inter alia contemplated a revision to the Tribunal on an application <\/p>\n
    made   to   it   against   an   order   of   the   Commissioner,   not   being   an <\/p>\n
    order   passed  under  Section   55(2)<\/a>,   in   second   appeal.     The   State <\/p>\n
    Legislature   amended   the   provision   in   1990   so   as   to   delete   the <\/p>\n
    remedy of a revision against an order passed by the Commissioner <\/p>\n
    to the Tribunal that was available under clause (b) of Sub-section <\/p>\n
    (1) of Section 57<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
    -10.         In Section 55<\/a>, the legislature has made a provision for an <\/p>\n
    appeal against   original orders passed by the various authorities.\n<\/p>\n
    An   appeal   against   an   order   of   the   Sales   Tax   Officer   lies   to   the <\/p>\n
    Assistant Commissioner; an appeal against an order of the Assistant <\/p>\n
    Commissioner   lies   to   the   Deputy   Commissioner   and   an   appeal <\/p>\n
    against an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Additional <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                              17<\/span><\/p>\n
    Commissioner or Commissioner lies to the Tribunal.   Sub-section <\/p>\n
    (1) of Section 55<\/a> provides that an appeal from every original order, <\/p>\n
    not being an order mentioned in Section 56<\/a> passed under the Act <\/p>\n
    or the rules, would lie if an order is made by one of the authorities <\/p>\n
    stipulated   therein   to   the   appellate   authorities   as   specified.     The <\/p>\n
    appellate   authority   against   an   original   order   passed   by   the <\/p>\n
    Commissioner is the Tribunal.   The mandate of the law is that an <\/p>\n
    appeal   lies   against   every   original   order   passed   under   the   Act   or <\/p>\n
    rules   which   is   made   by   one   of   the   authorities   specified.     The <\/p>\n
    exception   is   that   certain   orders   specified   in   Section   56<\/a>   are   non-\n<\/p>\n
    appealable.\n<\/p>\n
    -11.        The submission which has been urged on behalf of the <\/p>\n
    Respondents is that though Section 55(1)<\/a> is neutrally worded, the <\/p>\n
    scheme   of   the   Act   would   result   in   the   conclusion   that   the   State <\/p>\n
    Government   cannot   be   aggrieved   by   an   order   passed   by   the <\/p>\n
    Commissioner  so  as  to  maintain   an  appeal  under  Section  55(1)<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
    The submission which has been urged is that the Commissioner is <\/p>\n
    appointed with the intent and purpose of protecting the revenue <\/p>\n
    concern  of the State Government  and in numerous provisions of <\/p>\n
    the Act, it is the Commissioner who discharges the role of being the <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                              18<\/span><\/p>\n
    protector of the revenue.  Hence, it has been urged that the State <\/p>\n
    cannot   maintain   an   appeal   against   an   order   passed   by   the <\/p>\n
    Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n
    12.         Reading Section 55<\/a> as it stands, the provision does not <\/p>\n
    contain a restriction of the nature sought to be inferred on behalf <\/p>\n
    of the Respondents.   Section 55<\/a> provides for an appeal from every <\/p>\n
    original order except for those orders mentioned in Section 56<\/a>.  An <\/p>\n
    original order under Section 52<\/a>   is not mentioned in Section 56<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
    On  its   plain  and natural  meaning,  an  appeal   against   an  original <\/p>\n
    order passed under Section  52<\/a> is maintainable under Section  55<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
    In   construing   the   provisions   of   a   fiscal   statute,   the   Court     must <\/p>\n
    adopt the ordinary and natural meaning of the words used by the <\/p>\n
    legislature, for the legislature is deemed to intend and mean what <\/p>\n
    it says.  Where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, <\/p>\n
    the Court cannot read  a restriction which has not been introduced <\/p>\n
    by   the   legislature.     The   intention   of   the   legislature   has   to   be <\/p>\n
    construed from the words used and by the language adopted.   The <\/p>\n
    words that have been used in Section 55<\/a>  are not susceptible to the <\/p>\n
    interpretation   that   the   appellate   remedy   is   available   only   to   the <\/p>\n
    assessee.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                              19<\/span><\/p>\n
    12.         The fallacy in the submission of the Respondents, which <\/p>\n
    found acceptance by the Tribunal, lies in equating the exercise of <\/p>\n
    the quasi judicial powers by the Commissioner, with the exercise of <\/p>\n
    powers by the State.  Undoubtedly, under Section  20(1)<\/a>, the State <\/p>\n
    Government appoints the Commissioner of Sales Tax for carrying <\/p>\n
    out the purpose of the Act.   The Commissioner is vested with the <\/p>\n
    exercise of all the powers and with the performance of the duties <\/p>\n
    conferred by the Act.   In these proceedings, the issue before the <\/p>\n
    Court  relates to the exercise of  powers by the Commissioner while <\/p>\n
    deciding a disputed question under Section  52<\/a>.  The power which <\/p>\n
    the   Commissioner   exercises   to  decide   such  a  question   is  a  quasi <\/p>\n
    judicial   power.       Section   52<\/a>   is   a   part   of   Chapter   VII   which   is <\/p>\n
    entitled   “Proceedings”.     The   nature   of   the   determination   under <\/p>\n
    Section 52<\/a> is quasi judicial.  Section 53<\/a> which immediately follows <\/p>\n
    Section 52<\/a>, specifically confers upon the Commissioner, the powers <\/p>\n
    of a Civil Court though in certain specific areas for proof of facts by <\/p>\n
    affidavit, summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person, <\/p>\n
    compelling   the   production   of   documents   and   for   issuing <\/p>\n
    commissions for the examination of witnesses.  In the discharge of <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                              20<\/span><\/p>\n
    his quasi judicial powers, the Commissioner is required to apply his <\/p>\n
    mind   independently   and   is   not   subservient   to   the   State.     The <\/p>\n
    exercise   of   quasi   judicial   power   by   the   Commissioner   cannot   be <\/p>\n
    subject to the dictate or to the directions of the State.  Though the <\/p>\n
    Commissioner is vested with   statutory powers under the Act and <\/p>\n
    his appointment is with a view to carry out the purposes of the Act, <\/p>\n
    when   he   exercises   quasi   judicial   powers,   the   exercise   of   those <\/p>\n
    powers is subject to the discipline of the law which attaches to the <\/p>\n
    discharge   of   a   quasi   judicial   power.     A   determination   by   the <\/p>\n
    Commissioner   under   Section     52<\/a>   is  an   original   order   within   the <\/p>\n
    meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 55<\/a>.  To hold that an appeal <\/p>\n
    at the behest of the State would not be maintainable against such <\/p>\n
    determination,   is   liable   to   produce   startling   results.     The <\/p>\n
    submission   of   the   Respondents   is  that   even   if  the   Commissioner <\/p>\n
    were   to   err   in   the   discharge   of   his   quasi   judicial   powers   under <\/p>\n
    Section     52<\/a>,   the   statute   does   not   provide   a   remedy   for   its <\/p>\n
    correction, save and except for a review which can be exercised by <\/p>\n
    the   Commissioner.     This   would   be   destructive   of   the   legitimate <\/p>\n
    concerns of the State in the collection  of Revenue.   Clear words <\/p>\n
    would be necessary to produce such a result.   The legislature has <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                              21<\/span><\/p>\n
    not imposed such a prohibition.   The Tribunal dealt with the issue <\/p>\n
    by holding that it was for the State Government to take steps to <\/p>\n
    bring   about   an   amendment   by     legislation.     The   provision   as   it <\/p>\n
    stands, is not susceptible of being interpreted in such a manner as <\/p>\n
    would exclude an appeal  by the State against an order passed by <\/p>\n
    the   Commissioner   under   Section     52<\/a>.     Section   55(1)<\/a>   does   not <\/p>\n
    contain any such restriction.  A restriction of that nature could only <\/p>\n
    be by express words used by the legislature or if as a result of a <\/p>\n
    necessary implication drawn from the statutory provision only one <\/p>\n
    possible   conclusion   could   be   arrived   at.     That   is   not   so   in   the <\/p>\n
    present case.\n<\/p>\n
    13.         In  Amar Dye Chem Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra<\/a>, 2   a <\/p>\n
    Division   Bench   of   this   Court   considered     four   questions   on   a <\/p>\n
    reference by the Tribunal, at the instance of the assessee,   under <\/p>\n
    Section     61(1)<\/a>.       The   questions   which   were   referred   for   the <\/p>\n
    determination of the Court were as follows :\n<\/p>\n
                “(1)  Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of
\n                the case  and  considering  the dates  of filing  of returns,
\n                assessment order and filing of the first appeal, all prior to
\n                1971, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Assistant <\/p>\n
    2 (1983) 53 STC 14 (Bom)<\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                            22<\/span><\/p>\n
               Commissioner of Sales Tax did have power of enhancing
\n               the   quantum   of   purchases   from   Rs.3,52,597   to   Rs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               7,69,246 while deciding the appeal?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the
\n               case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Assistant <\/p>\n
               Commissioner   of   Sales   Tax   possessed   jurisdiction   of
\n               enhancing the rate of purchase tax from 3 per cent to 5
\n               per cent taking recourse to sub-section (2A) of section 14
\n               of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, as substituted   and <\/p>\n
               always deemed to have been substituted by Maharashtra
\n               Act 13 of  1973)?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (3)   On   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case   and
\n               regard being had to 67 per cent of local sales as against
\n               purchases   on   form   15   only     of   45   per   cent,   was   the
\n               Tribunal   justified   in   law   in   holding   that   the   applicant <\/p>\n
               made   breach   of   recitals   of   form   15   and   thereby   was
\n               liable  to purchase  tax under section  14 of the Bombay <\/p>\n
               Sales Tax act, 1959?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (4)     On   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case   and
\n               regard being had to overall purchases made within and
\n               without   the   State   of   Maharashtra,   was   the   Tribunal
\n               justified   in   law   in   holding   that   the   applicant   was   not <\/p>\n
               entitled to the full set-off of Rs.1,26,634?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The   first   question     related   to   the   power   of   the   Assistant <\/p>\n
    Commissioner   to   enhance   the   quantum   of   purchases   which   had <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                             23<\/span><\/p>\n
    become   exigible   to   purchase   tax   under   Section     14<\/a>,   while     the <\/p>\n
    second question related to his jurisdiction to enhance the rate of <\/p>\n
    purchase tax on such purchases.  Sub-section (6) of Section 55<\/a> as it <\/p>\n
    originally   stood,   provided   that   an   Appellate   Authority   may   pass <\/p>\n
    such orders on appeal as it deems just and proper, subject to such <\/p>\n
    rules   and   procedure   as   may   be   prescribed.     As   a   result   of <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra Act 42 of 1971, sub-section (6) was substituted so as <\/p>\n
    to   inter   alia   provide   that   in   an   appeal   against   an   order   of <\/p>\n
    assessment, the Appellate Authority may confirm, reduce, enhance <\/p>\n
    or annul the assessment.   The Division Bench held that under the <\/p>\n
    new sub-section (6) of Section 55<\/a>, the appellate authority became <\/p>\n
    clothed   with   a   wider   power   and  jurisdiction   than   under   the   old <\/p>\n
    sub-section (6).    The assessee had not filed the appeal after the <\/p>\n
    amended   sub-section   (6)   came   into   force   and   the   appeal   was <\/p>\n
    required to be decided according to the provisions of the old sub-\n<\/p>\n
    section (6).   The Division Bench held that the only question that <\/p>\n
    remained for determination was whether the order of the Appellate <\/p>\n
    Commissioner was one which he was competent to pass under the <\/p>\n
    old   sub-section   (6).     The   Division   Bench   held   that   the   order   of <\/p>\n
    Assistant Commissioner in appeal was under the unamended sub-\n<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                             24<\/span><\/p>\n
    section (6) of Section 55<\/a> and that in view of the questions arising <\/p>\n
    in the appeal filed by the assessee, he had the power to enhance <\/p>\n
    the quantum of purchases.  The rate of sales tax could be enhanced <\/p>\n
    by reason of the retrospective operation of Section 14(2A) of the <\/p>\n
    Bombay   Sales   Tax   (Amendment   and   Validating   Provisions)   Act, <\/p>\n
    1973.\n<\/p>\n
    14.<\/p>\n
                During the course of the judgment in  Amar Dye Chem, <\/p>\n
    the Division Bench compared the provisions of the Bombay Sales <\/p>\n
    Tax Act, 1959, with the Income Tax act, 1961.   The Division Bench <\/p>\n
    held  that under the  Income  Tax Act<\/a>,  against   an order  passed in <\/p>\n
    appeal by the Assistant Commissioner, both the assessee and the <\/p>\n
    Department could approach the Appellate Tribunal but   there was <\/p>\n
    no such provision under the Sales Tax Legislation, and an  appeal <\/p>\n
    could be available only to the assessee.\n<\/p>\n
    15.         Now,   it   is   a   settled   principle   of   law   that   a   decision <\/p>\n
    rendered   by   the   High   Court   on   a   reference   is   in   an   advisory <\/p>\n
    capacity and that the Court can decide only questions which are <\/p>\n
    referred   to   it   and   not   any   other   question.   This   principle   was <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                             25<\/span><\/p>\n
    reiterated in the context of the provisions of sub-sections (1) and <\/p>\n
    (2) Section 66<\/a> of the Income Tax Act, 1922 in the decision of the <\/p>\n
    Supreme   Court   in  CIT   vs.   Scindia   Steam   Navigation   Co.  Ltd<\/a>.3 <\/p>\n
    The Supreme Court  held that the High Court hearing  a reference <\/p>\n
    under   Section     66(1)<\/a>   does   not   exercise     appellate,   revisional   or <\/p>\n
    supervisory jurisdiction over the Tribunal.  The Court acts purely in <\/p>\n
    an advisory capacity, on a reference which properly comes before it <\/p>\n
    under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section  66<\/a>.  The Supreme Court <\/p>\n
    held that it is of the essence of such a jurisdiction that the Court <\/p>\n
    can   decide   only   questions   which   are   referred   to   it   and   not   any <\/p>\n
    other   questions.   The   same   principle   has   been   reiterated   by   the <\/p>\n
    Supreme   Court   in   its   judgments   in  Aluminium   Corporation   of <\/p>\n
    India Ltd. vs. CIT<\/a>,4   and in CIT vs. Bansi Dhar & Sons<\/a>.5    In the <\/p>\n
    circumstances, following the   settled position in law, the ratio of <\/p>\n
    the judgment of the Division Bench in  Amar Dye Chem  must be <\/p>\n
    confined to the questions of law on which a reference was made to <\/p>\n
    the   Court.     The   issue   as   to  whether   an   appeal   against   an   order <\/p>\n
    passed   by   the   Commissioner   would   be   maintainable   before   the <\/p>\n
    Tribunal   under  Section     55(1)(c)<\/a>   was  not   referred   to  this  Court
\n    3 (1961) Vol.XLII ITR 589
\n    4 86 ITR 11 (1972)
\n    5 (1986) 157 ITR 665<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                            26<\/span><\/p>\n
    under Section  61<\/a>.  Consequently, the observations of the Division <\/p>\n
    Bench on that issue cannot be regarded as arising out of the order <\/p>\n
    passed on the reference.\n<\/p>\n
    16.         Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents relied <\/p>\n
    upon   the   judgment   of   a   Division   Bench   of   this   Court   in  Kulko <\/p>\n
    Engineering Works Ltd. vs. The State of Maharashtra<\/a>.6    In that <\/p>\n
    case   the submission which was urged on behalf of the Revenue <\/p>\n
    was that the decision of the Commissioner under Section   52(1)<\/a> <\/p>\n
    has no binding effect and the Sales Tax Officer is not bound by it.\n<\/p>\n
    While rejecting this argument, the Division Bench held that the Act <\/p>\n
    provides   for   a   hierarchy   of   authorities;   some   of   them   possess <\/p>\n
    original   jurisdiction,   some   appellate   or   revisional   jurisdiction   or <\/p>\n
    both.   This Court observed that the hierarchy of authorities under <\/p>\n
    the Act is provided in order to have a superior authority to correct <\/p>\n
    wrong orders or to provide a remedy by way of appeal and revision <\/p>\n
    to a party aggrieved by an order.   If a question submitted to the <\/p>\n
    Commissioner   for   determination   under   Section     52<\/a>   has   been <\/p>\n
    determined by him upon an interpretation of the provisions of the <\/p>\n
    6 (1980) 46 STC 454<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                            27<\/span><\/p>\n
    Act or Rules, it would not be open to a Sales Tax Officer to ignore <\/p>\n
    that interpretation and to place his own interpretation contrary to <\/p>\n
    or different from the interpretation which has been placed by the <\/p>\n
    Commissioner.       The   judgment   of   the   Division   Bench,   therefore, <\/p>\n
    does   not   decide   the   issue   as   to   whether   a   determination   under <\/p>\n
    Section  52<\/a> would be subject to an appeal under Section  55<\/a> by the <\/p>\n
    State.     Similarly,   the   decision   of   the   Supreme   Court   in <\/p>\n
    Commissioner of Sales Tax  vs. Indra Industries<\/a>,7  reiterated the <\/p>\n
    position in law that a circular issued by the Department would be <\/p>\n
    binding   on   the   Department   and   the   taxing   authority   cannot   be <\/p>\n
    heard   to   advance   an   argument   that   is   contrary   to   that <\/p>\n
    interpretation.\n<\/p>\n
    17.         The   order   which   has   been   passed   by   the   Tribunal   is <\/p>\n
    manifestly   misconceived   and   would   warrant   interference   of   this <\/p>\n
    Court   in   its   extraordinary   jurisdiction   under   Article   226<\/a>   of   the <\/p>\n
    Constitution.  The basic postulate of the decision of the Tribunal is <\/p>\n
    that orders which are passed by the Commissioner are in  exercise <\/p>\n
    of powers which are delegated to him by the government and that <\/p>\n
    7 (2001) 122 STC 100<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                              28<\/span><\/p>\n
    the   Commissioner   acts   as   a   representative   or   agent   of   the <\/p>\n
    Government.  This assumption is incorrect.  The Commissioner who <\/p>\n
    is vested with a quasi judicial authority under Section   52<\/a> cannot <\/p>\n
    be   regarded   as   being   a   representative   or   agent   of   the   State <\/p>\n
    Government when he decides an issue under that provision.   The <\/p>\n
    Tribunal was, with respect, in manifest error when it held that a <\/p>\n
    legal   injury   cannot   be   said   to   be   sustained   by   the   State <\/p>\n
    Government,   nor   can   the   State   Government   be   regarded   as   an <\/p>\n
    aggrieved person qua the order passed by the Commissioner who is <\/p>\n
    a representative of the State.  The State is vitally interested in the <\/p>\n
    collection of revenue.   An error on the part of the Commissioner in <\/p>\n
    the exercise of his quasi judicial powers is subject to correction by <\/p>\n
    the Tribunal in an appeal filed by the State.   To hold otherwise <\/p>\n
    would result in a manifest miscarriage of justice and would defeat <\/p>\n
    the   very   basis   and   intent   of   the     legislature   in   enacting   the <\/p>\n
    legislation.     The   State   which   has   a  vital   interest   in   securing   the <\/p>\n
    collection of revenue is entitled to file an appeal against an order <\/p>\n
    passed by the Commissioner where that order is regarded as being <\/p>\n
    contrary to law.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:43 :::<\/span>
\n                                              29<\/span><\/p>\n
    18.         Before  concluding,  it would be necessary to note   that <\/p>\n
    the   Tribunal   has   dismissed   the   appeal   only   on   the   ground   of <\/p>\n
    maintainability.   The Tribunal has not decided any other question <\/p>\n
    including   the   question   of   limitation.     That   being   the   position,   it <\/p>\n
    would not be either appropriate or proper to express  any view on <\/p>\n
    the questions which would arise before the Tribunal including on <\/p>\n
    the question of limitation.  All these questions are kept open to be <\/p>\n
    urged before   and to be decided by the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
    19.         In the circumstances,  Rule is made absolute by setting <\/p>\n
    aside the order of the Tribunal dated 30 June 2008.   The appeal <\/p>\n
    shall   in   the   circumstances,   be   restored   back   to   the   file   of   the <\/p>\n
    Tribunal to be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions.  In <\/p>\n
    the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                   ( J.P.Devadhar, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:51:43 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court The State Of Maharashtra vs M\/S.Bharat Petroleum … on 20 April, 2010 Bench: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.P. Devadhar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4098 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra. …Petitioner. Vs. M\/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.& Anr. …Respondents. …. Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni, Spl. Counsel with Mr. […]<\/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-252786","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe State Of Maharashtra vs M\/S.Bharat Petroleum ... on 20 April, 2010 - 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-state-of-maharashtra-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-20-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The State Of Maharashtra vs M\/S.Bharat Petroleum ... on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-20-april-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-29T11:43:25+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=\"29 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-state-of-maharashtra-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-20-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-20-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The State Of Maharashtra vs M\\\/S.Bharat Petroleum … on 20 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-29T11:43:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-20-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":5676,\"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-state-of-maharashtra-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-20-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-20-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-20-april-2010\",\"name\":\"The State Of Maharashtra vs M\\\/S.Bharat Petroleum ... on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-29T11:43:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-20-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-20-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-20-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The State Of Maharashtra vs M\\\/S.Bharat Petroleum … on 20 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@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 State Of Maharashtra vs M\/S.Bharat Petroleum ... on 20 April, 2010 - 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-state-of-maharashtra-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-20-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The State Of Maharashtra vs M\/S.Bharat Petroleum ... on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-20-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-29T11:43:25+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":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-20-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-20-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The State Of Maharashtra vs M\/S.Bharat Petroleum … on 20 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-29T11:43:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-20-april-2010"},"wordCount":5676,"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-state-of-maharashtra-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-20-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-20-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-20-april-2010","name":"The State Of Maharashtra vs M\/S.Bharat Petroleum ... on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-29T11:43:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-20-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-20-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-state-of-maharashtra-vs-ms-bharat-petroleum-on-20-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The State Of Maharashtra vs M\/S.Bharat Petroleum … on 20 April, 2010"}]},{"@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\/252786","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=252786"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252786\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=252786"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=252786"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=252786"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}