Hot plates and sales tax exemption: later unchallenged Tribunal acceptance undermined contrary earlier findings on the same commodity

Hot plates were treated as falling within entry No. 164(v) of the notification under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, so they qualified for sales tax exemption. The commentary also notes that the assessee could rely on an unchallenged later Tribunal order accepting exemption for the same commodity and issue; on that basis, contrary findings in earlier overlapping periods could not be sustained. The impugned Tribunal orders were therefore set aside, and the exemption position was affirmed for hot plates.

---

---

Issues: Whether hot plates were covered by entry No. 164(v) of the notification issued under section 41 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and were therefore exempt from sales tax, and whether the unchallenged later tribunal decision in favour of the assessee could be relied upon while deciding the earlier period.

Analysis: The Court held that the ratio of the Supreme Court decisions relied upon by the assessee, which dealt with unchallenged High Court decisions, could not be extended to an earlier Tribunal order. However, it also noted that for a subsequent period the Third Bench of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal had already accepted the assessee's claim that hot plates were exempt, and that order had not been challenged by the revenue. In these circumstances, the contrary findings recorded by the First and Second Benches for the earlier period could not be sustained.

Conclusion: Hot plates were held to fall within entry No. 164(v) of the notification under section 41 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and were exempt from payment of sales tax; the impugned tribunal orders were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded in establishing entitlement to sales tax exemption on hot plates, and the adverse tribunal orders were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the revenue leaves unchallenged a later tribunal decision accepting the assessee's claim on the same commodity and issue, contrary earlier tribunal findings for an overlapping earlier period may not be sustained.

---