Statutory construction for registered dealers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act was upheld, and the State's challenge failed.

The Supreme Court construed section 37(1)(a) read with section 46(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 in relation to registered dealers and found the High Court's interpretation to be legally sound. It held that the statutory language, properly read, supported the High Court's view and disclosed no legal infirmity in the construction adopted. On that basis, the State's challenge in the appeals and special leave petitions failed, and the High Court's interpretation was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on a proper construction of section 37(1)(a) read with section 46(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the High Court's view on the liability of registered dealers was correct.

Analysis: The Court construed the language of section 37(1)(a), insofar as it related to registered dealers, together with section 46(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and found the High Court's interpretation to be legally sound and free from infirmity. On that construction, the State's challenge in the appeals and special leave petitions did not disclose any merit.

Conclusion: The interpretation adopted by the High Court was upheld and the challenge by the tax department failed.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirmed the High Court's construction of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 in relation to registered dealers, resulting in dismissal of the State's challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory language concerning registered dealers is clear, the Court will uphold the construction that accords with the text of the relevant provisions and shows no legal infirmity.

---