{"id":33347,"date":"2009-09-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-maharashtra-sales-tax-tribunal-on-25-september-2009"},"modified":"2019-02-05T07:07:12","modified_gmt":"2019-02-05T01:37:12","slug":"commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-maharashtra-sales-tax-tribunal-on-25-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-maharashtra-sales-tax-tribunal-on-25-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal & … on 25 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal & … on 25 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: F.I. Rebello, D.G. Karnik<\/div>\n
                                                       1\n\n     abs\n\n                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY \n\n\n\n\n                                                                                            \n                             ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n                                   WRIT PETITION NO. 968 OF 2003\n\n           Commissioner of Sales Tax                                                  ..  Petitioner\n\n                V\/s\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n           Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal & Ors.                                      .. Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n           Ms. I. Calcuttawala, A.G.P. for the petitioner.\n                                      \n           Mr. V.P. Patkar with Mr. M.M. Vaidya for the respondents.\n                                     \n                                       CORAM  :  FERDINO I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                                DATE     :  25TH SEPTEMBER 2009\n                  \n               \n\n\n\n           JUDGMENT : (Per D.G. Karnik, J.)\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
           1.     By this petition, the State of Maharashtra – petitioner challenges the <\/p>\n
           judgment  dated  28th  February   2002   passed   by  the   Maharashtra   Sales  Tax <\/p>\n
           Tribunal   (for   short   “the   Tribunal”)  allowing  the   miscellaneous   application <\/p>\n
           filed by the respondent no.2.\n<\/p>\n
           2.     The   respondent   no.2   is   a   manufacturer   of   a   mouthwash   which   it <\/p>\n
           markets   under   the   brand   name   “Listerine   Mouthwash”.     It   made   an <\/p>\n
           application to the Commissioner of Sales Tax under section 52 of the Bombay <\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:07:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
    Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short “the Act”) to get its product classified under <\/p>\n
    Entry 24 of Schedule-C Part I and also prayed that prospective effect be given <\/p>\n
    to the order by virtue of the powers under sub-section (2) of section 52.  By <\/p>\n
    an order dated 20th October 1995, the Commissioner of Sales Tax held that <\/p>\n
    the   product   of   the   respondent   no.2   was   covered   by   Entry   86   Part   II   of <\/p>\n
    Schedule-C   and   was   liable   to   tax   at   the   rate   of   15   paise   in   a   rupee.\n<\/p>\n
    Aggrieved by the order the respondent no.2 filed an appeal bearing no.158 <\/p>\n
    of  1995 before the  Tribunal.   The Tribunal  heard the  appeal  filed by the <\/p>\n
    petitioner   along   with   another   appeal   bearing   no.4   of   1996   filed   by   M\/s <\/p>\n
    Johnson & Johnson Ltd., another manufacturer of a similar product and by <\/p>\n
    an   order   dated   21st  June   1997   confirmed   the   order   passed   by   the <\/p>\n
    Commissioner.     The   respondent   no.2   filed   an   application   for   rectification <\/p>\n
    bearing   rectification   application   no.   73   of   1997   before   the   Tribunal   for <\/p>\n
    modification\/correction of the order.  By an order dated 19th December 1998, <\/p>\n
    the Tribunal rejected the rectification application.  The respondent no.2 then <\/p>\n
    filed another application, bearing misc. application no.171 of 2001 on 8th <\/p>\n
    December   2001   alleging   therein   that   one   of   the   points   raised   by   the <\/p>\n
    respondent no.1 in the original appeal as well as the rectification application, <\/p>\n
    namely giving of prospective effect to the order of the Commissioner was not <\/p>\n
    considered and decided by the Tribunal and, therefore, the Tribunal should <\/p>\n
    consider   the   same   and   grant   prospective   effect   to   the   order   of   the <\/p>\n
    Commissioner.   That application was made on 8th  December 2001.   By an <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:07:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
    order dated 28th  February 2002, the  Tribunal allowed the application and <\/p>\n
    held that the determination made by the Commissioner on 20th October 1995 <\/p>\n
    under section 52(2) of the Act would apply prospectively from the date of <\/p>\n
    the   decision,   namely   20th  October   1995.     That   order   is   impugned   in   this <\/p>\n
    petition.\n<\/p>\n
    3.     Learned   A.G.P.   appearing   for   the   petitioner   submitted   that   once   an <\/p>\n
    application for rectification (Rectification Application no. 73 of 1997) of the <\/p>\n
    order   was   rejected   by   the   Tribunal,   the   order   became   final.     Second <\/p>\n
    application by whatever name called (numbered as Misc. Application no.171 <\/p>\n
    of   2001)   was   not   maintainable   and,   therefore,   the   order   passed   by   the <\/p>\n
    Tribunal   was   without   jurisdiction.     In   the   alternative,   the   learned   A.G.P.\n<\/p>\n
    submitted that assuming that the Tribunal had the power of rectification or <\/p>\n
    entertaining   the   second   application,   treating   it   as   an   application   for <\/p>\n
    rectification, it could not be entertained after expiry of two years from the <\/p>\n
    date of the original order or in any event from 19 th October 2001 when the <\/p>\n
    first rectification application was decided.  We find merit in the submissions <\/p>\n
    of the learned A.G.P.\n<\/p>\n
    4.     Section 52 of the Sales Tax Act confers power on the Commissioner to <\/p>\n
    decide the matters mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) thereof, <\/p>\n
    one of which is the rate of tax payable.  Sub-section (2) of section 52 states <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:07:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
    that the Commissioner may direct that his order shall not affect the liability <\/p>\n
    of   any   person   in   respect   of   any   sale   or   purchase   effected   prior   to   the <\/p>\n
    determination.   Thus, the  Commissioner  specifically conferred a  power to <\/p>\n
    make   his   decision   prospective.     Order   passed   by   the   Commissioner   is <\/p>\n
    appealable to the Tribunal under section 55 of the Act.  Section 62(1) of the <\/p>\n
    Act confers a power on the Commissioner to rectify any mistake apparent <\/p>\n
    from the record either on his own motion or on the same being brought to <\/p>\n
    his notice by any person affected by such order.   Sub-section (2) of section <\/p>\n
    62 confers the same power on the Tribunal as that of the Commissioner for <\/p>\n
    rectification of a mistake in its order.   Thus, the Tribunal has a power to <\/p>\n
    rectify any mistake in its order.  However, the section itself provides that the <\/p>\n
    power of rectification can be exercised within two years.  In the present case, <\/p>\n
    the   Commissioner   passed   the   order   on   20th  October   1995.     The   Tribunal <\/p>\n
    passed the order in appeal on 21st June 1997.  An application for rectification <\/p>\n
    was   made   within   two   years   and   was   rejected   by   the   Tribunal   on   19 th <\/p>\n
    December   1998.     Once   the   application   was   rejected,   there   could   be   no <\/p>\n
    second   application   for   rectification   of   a   mistake   appearing   in   the   first <\/p>\n
    appellate order.  In our view, successive applications for rectification would <\/p>\n
    not   be   maintainable   as   there   is   no   such   power   specifically   conferred   by <\/p>\n
    section 62 of the Act.   Assuming however that the second application for <\/p>\n
    rectification is maintainable, it cannot be filed after two years.  In the present <\/p>\n
    case, second application under the caption “Misc. Application” was filed on <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:07:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
    8th December 2001.  That clearly after two years of the appellate order  and <\/p>\n
    even after two years of the rejection of the first rectification application on <\/p>\n
    19th October 1998.  The second application, assuming second application lay, <\/p>\n
    was clearly barred by limitation.   Therefore, the Tribunal had no power to <\/p>\n
    entertain it.  The impugned order therefore has to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
    5.     Though we have set aside the order, in our view, ends of justice require <\/p>\n
    further order to be passed as indicated below.  It was the contention of the <\/p>\n
    petitioner that the Commissioner should have given a prospective effect to <\/p>\n
    his   order   which   he   was   entitled   to   under   section   52(2)   of   the   Act.     The <\/p>\n
    ground   that   prospective   effect   should   be   given   to   the   order   of   the <\/p>\n
    Commissioner was specifically urged before the Tribunal.  Such a ground is <\/p>\n
    also   found   in   the   appeal   memo,   a   copy   of   which   is   handed   over   to   us.\n<\/p>\n
    However, that ground was not dealt with by the Tribunal at all in its order <\/p>\n
    dated   21st  June   1997.     Perhaps,   this   happened   because   the   Tribunal   had <\/p>\n
    heard and disposed off the two appeals, one filed by the respondent and the <\/p>\n
    other filed by Johnson & Johnson, by a common order and therefore only the <\/p>\n
    common point raised in the two appeals were considered by the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
    The   specific   ground   of   giving   prospective   effect   to   the   order   of   the <\/p>\n
    Commissioner   was   not   considered   by   the   Tribunal.     Two   separate <\/p>\n
    rectification applications, one bearing no.73 of 1997 by the respondent no.2 <\/p>\n
    and another bearing no. 71 of 1997 by Johnson & Johnson Ltd. filed before <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:07:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
    it,   were   decided   by   the   Tribunal   by   a   common   judgment.   Though   the <\/p>\n
    respondent no.2 specifically raised a ground that the Commissioner ought to <\/p>\n
    have given specific prospective effect to his order under section 52(2) of the <\/p>\n
    Act   and   had   pointed   out   that   the   said   point   was   not   dealt   with   by   the <\/p>\n
    Tribunal in the first order, it was not dealt with by the Tribunal even in the <\/p>\n
    application for rectification.   Again this mistake appears to have occurred <\/p>\n
    because   the   Tribunal   was   dealing   with   the   two   separate   appeals <\/p>\n
    simultaneously and appears to have considered only the common grounds <\/p>\n
    raised in the two rectification applications which were decided by a common <\/p>\n
    order.     The   ground   of   giving   of   prospective   effect   of   the   order   of   the <\/p>\n
    Commissioner   was   required   to   be   decided   by   the   Tribunal   first   while <\/p>\n
    deciding the appeal at the first instance and, in any event, while deciding the <\/p>\n
    rectification application filed by the present respondent no.2.   As the said <\/p>\n
    issue was not decided, the respondent no.2 was required to make the second <\/p>\n
    application.  As the second application was allowed, the respondent no.2 had <\/p>\n
    no occasion to challenge the first appellate order passed by the Tribunal in <\/p>\n
    rectification application no.73 of 1997.  We are therefore of the view that the <\/p>\n
    matter   be   remanded   back   to   the   Tribunal   for   rehearing   rectification <\/p>\n
    application no.73 of 1997 filed by the respondent no.2 but only regarding <\/p>\n
    the   contention   of   the   respondent   no.2   that   the   Commissioner   and   the <\/p>\n
    Tribunal   ought   to   have   given   prospective   effect   to   the   order   of   the <\/p>\n
    Commissioner under section 52(2) of the Act.   We make it clear that the <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:07:24 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
    points already decided in rectification application no.73 of 1997 shall stand <\/p>\n
    concluded and would not be reopened, but on remand the Tribunal would <\/p>\n
    only consider the issue regarding prospective effect to be given to the order <\/p>\n
    of   the   Commissioner   under   section   52(2)   of   the   Act.     The   Tribunal   shall <\/p>\n
    consider the same independently and without being in any way influenced <\/p>\n
    by any of the observations in the impugned order dated 28th February 2002 <\/p>\n
    which is hereby set aside.\n<\/p>\n
    6.<\/p>\n
           For these reasons, Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above.\n<\/p>\n
    The impugned order dated 28th  February 2001 is set aside.   However,   the <\/p>\n
    matter   is   remanded   back   to   the   Tribunal   to   decide   the   rectification <\/p>\n
    application no.73 of 1997 afresh as regards the issue of prospective effect to <\/p>\n
    be given to the order of the Commissioner under section 52(2) of the Act.  In <\/p>\n
    the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
    (D.G. KARNIK, J.)                                           (FERDINO I. REBELLO, J.)\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                                ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:07:24 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal & … on 25 September, 2009 Bench: F.I. Rebello, D.G. Karnik 1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 968 OF 2003 Commissioner of Sales Tax .. Petitioner V\/s Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal & […]<\/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-33347","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Sales Tax vs Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal & ... on 25 September, 2009 - 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\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-maharashtra-sales-tax-tribunal-on-25-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal & ... on 25 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-maharashtra-sales-tax-tribunal-on-25-september-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-05T01:37:12+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-maharashtra-sales-tax-tribunal-on-25-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-maharashtra-sales-tax-tribunal-on-25-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal & … on 25 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-05T01:37:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-maharashtra-sales-tax-tribunal-on-25-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1516,\"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\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-maharashtra-sales-tax-tribunal-on-25-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-maharashtra-sales-tax-tribunal-on-25-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-maharashtra-sales-tax-tribunal-on-25-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal & ... on 25 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-05T01:37:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-maharashtra-sales-tax-tribunal-on-25-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-maharashtra-sales-tax-tribunal-on-25-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-maharashtra-sales-tax-tribunal-on-25-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal & … on 25 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal & ... on 25 September, 2009 - 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\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-maharashtra-sales-tax-tribunal-on-25-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal & ... on 25 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-maharashtra-sales-tax-tribunal-on-25-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-05T01:37:12+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-maharashtra-sales-tax-tribunal-on-25-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-maharashtra-sales-tax-tribunal-on-25-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal & … on 25 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-05T01:37:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-maharashtra-sales-tax-tribunal-on-25-september-2009"},"wordCount":1516,"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\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-maharashtra-sales-tax-tribunal-on-25-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-maharashtra-sales-tax-tribunal-on-25-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-maharashtra-sales-tax-tribunal-on-25-september-2009","name":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal & ... on 25 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-05T01:37:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-maharashtra-sales-tax-tribunal-on-25-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-maharashtra-sales-tax-tribunal-on-25-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-sales-tax-vs-maharashtra-sales-tax-tribunal-on-25-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal & … on 25 September, 2009"}]},{"@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\/33347","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=33347"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33347\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33347"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33347"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33347"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}