THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX MUMBAIversusM/S. RICHARDSON AND CRUDAS (1972) LIMITED

                                                                        28-STR-69-2017.DOC




                                                                                     Shephali

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                SALES TAX REFERENCE NO. 69 OF 2017
                   The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai                     …Applicant
                         Versus
                   Richardson & Crudas (1972) Limited.                     …Respondent


                   Ms Jyoti Chavan, Addl. GP, with Himanshu Takke, AGP, for the
                        Applicant-State.
                   Ms Nikita Badheka, with Parth Badheka, Lata Nagal, for the
                        Respondent.


                                         CORAM:        SUMAN SHYAM &
SHEPHALI                                               GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ.
SANJAY
MORMARE

Digitally signed
                                         DATED:        6th OCTOBER 2026.
by SHEPHALI
SANJAY
MORMARE
                   PC:-
Date: 2026.10.06
18:11:53 +0530



                   1.     Heard Ms Jyoti Chavan, learned Additional Government

                   Pleader appearing for the Applicant-State. Also heard Ms Nikita

                   Badheka, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.


                   2.     This Reference is arising out of the order dated 4 th March

                   2006, passed by the learned Tribunal in Reference Application Nos.

                   45 & 46 of 2002, whereby the following questions of law had been

                   framed and referred to this Court.


                          “i. Whether on a true and correct interpretation of
                          the first proviso to sub-section 4A of section 33 of the




                                                  Page 1 of 4
                                                     28-STR-69-2017.DOC




      Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal was
      justified in law in holding that the provision of the
      said proviso are mandatory and not directory?

      ii. Whether on a true and correct interpretation of
      the first proviso to sub-section 4A of section 33 of the
      Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Tribunal was
      justified in law in holding that the applicability of the
      provisions of the said proviso is not limited only to
      sub-section 4A but extends to the entire section 33?”

3.    Ms Badheka, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent,

has invited our attention to the decision of this Court rendered by

a Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax,

Maharashtra State, Mumbai vs. Lucas India Services Ltd., 1 to

submit that the issue of limitation has been conclusively dealt with

and answered by the Division Bench in favour of the Assessee as

against the Revenue. Therefore, the questions of law framed by the

learned Tribunal do not survive for being considered by the Court

in the present proceeding.


4.    A cursory glance at the two questions of law framed by the

learned Tribunal, as noted above, gives us an impression that those

are nothing but one and the same, although, couched in a slightly

1     [2012] 50 VST 106 (Bom)




                                Page 2 of 4
                                                           28-STR-69-2017.DOC




different language. Be that as it may, whether, the learned Tribunal

was justified in expressing a particular opinion pertaining to

interpretation of sub-section 4A of Section 33, in our opinion, by

itself, would not gives rise to a question of law. It would have been

a different matter, had the Tribunal framed a question on a

proposition of law emanating from sub-section 4A of Section 33,

which apparently has not been done in the present case. Therefore,

viewed from that angle, we are of the view that the questions

framed by the learned Tribunal do not give rise to any question of

law.


5.     Insofar as the legal issue involved in the matter is concerned,

the said issue had been appropriately dealt with by a Division

Bench in the case of Lucas India Services Ltd. (Supra), the relevant

observations whereof are available in paragraphs 21 to 23 of the

said decision, which are reproduced herein-below for ready

reference:-


       “ 21. As a matter of fact, the questions referred are no more
       res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
       Court in the case of Debaki Debi [1964] 15 STC 153 (SC). The
       Apex Court in the said case whilst dealing with the pari materia
       provision of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947; wherein identical
       proviso having similar placement in the statutory provision/




                                  Page 3 of 4
                                                          28-STR-69-2017.DOC




      section was a subject matter of interpretation              and
      consideration, observed as follows (page 161 in 15 STC)

             “ ….The proviso is not in terms limited only to orders of
             assessment made under section 12, but on its language
             applies to and governs any order assessing the amount
             of tax, which would manifestly include an assessment
             under any provision of the Act besides section 12. …"

      22.    In the above view of the matter, the submission made by
      Mr. Surte deserves acceptance.

      23.    In the result, the questions referred stand answered in
      favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. Both the
      References stand disposed of in terms of this order with no
      order as to costs.”

6.    In view thereof, the question framed by the learned Tribunal

also, in our considered opinion, would not survive in this

Reference.


7.    Consequently, the Reference is devoid of merit and the same

is, accordingly, dismissed.




(GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.)                              (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
                                                                           {




                                 Page 4 of 4