THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, MUMBAIversusJAYA HIND INDUSTRIES LTD.

                                                                          9 STR 47-10-OS.DOC




                                                                                  Priya Soparkar

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                    SALES TAX REFERENCE NO.47 OF 2010
                      The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai.                   …Applicant
                           Versus
                      Jay Hind Industries Limited                           …Respondent


                      Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP with Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. GP for the
                             Applicant-State.
                      Mr. P. C. Joshi, for the Respondent.


                                            CORAM:      SUMAN SHYAM &
                                                        ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
                                            DATED:      8th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
                      PC:-
                      1.     Heard Mr. Himanshu Takke, learned AGP appearing for the

                      Applicant-State. Also heard Mr. P. C. Joshi, learned counsel

                      appearing for the Respondent.


                      2.     This Reference is arising out of the order dated 12 th January

                      2009, passed by the learned Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal,

                      Mumbai in Reference Application No.242 of 2008, whereby the

                      learned Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai has referred the
PRIYA
RAJESH                following question of law, to be answered by this Court:-
SOPARKAR
Digitally signed by
PRIYA RAJESH
SOPARKAR
Date: 2026.09.10
10:58:21 +0530               “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case
                             and on true and correct interpretation of Entry C-I-
                             23(2), the Tribunal was justified in law in holding




                                                     Page 1 of 3
                                                   9 STR 47-10-OS.DOC




      that the non-ferrous metal castings, namely
      aluminium castings manufactured and sold by the
      respondents (original appellants) are covered by the
      said entry C-I-23(2)?”

3.    Mr. P. C. Joshi, learned counsel for the Respondent submits

that this Reference was made purely on account of the facts that

another Reference, involving the same question of law in the case

of The Commission of Sales Tax Vs. Jai Hind Industries Limited

reported in Sales Tax Reference No.1 of 2009 with connected

matters decided on 30th October, 2015, was pending before this

Court at the relevant point of time. However, by the judgment

dated 30th October, 2015, the Division Bench of this Court has

already answered the question in favour of the assessee. Therefore,

the question of law does not survive in the present Reference.


4.    We have perused the judgment dated 30 th October, 2015 and

found that the second question answered in that case is the same

question of law, as reframed to this Court.


5.    Mr. Himanshu Takke, learned AGP, in his usual fairness,

submits that the matter is covered by the said judgment.


6.    In view of the above, nothing survives in this reference.




                              Page 2 of 3
                                                   9 STR 47-10-OS.DOC




7.   The Reference is, accordingly, disposed of.



(ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.)                       (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
                                                                    {




                            Page 3 of 3