Trade mark interpretation under Bombay Sales Tax law required reference, as the registered-mark reading raised a substantial legal question.

The dispute concerned whether entitlement to drawback under Rule 42H turned on the meaning of "trade mark" in Section 2(26) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, read with its Explanation on a seller holding a trade mark. The Tribunal had treated "trade mark" as limited to a registered trade mark and declined to refer the question. The High Court held that this interpretation raised a substantial question of law and that the Tribunal was not justified in refusing reference. The question of law was directed to be referred, without any decision on the underlying merits of the drawback claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in declining to refer the question on the assessee's entitlement to drawback under Rule 42H of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules, 1959, in the context of the meaning of "trade mark" in Section 2(26) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Analysis: The dispute arose in relation to assessment year 1991-92 and turned on the construction of the statutory definition in Section 2(26) read with its Explanation concerning a seller holding a trade mark. The Tribunal had proceeded on the view that "trade mark" meant only a registered trade mark. The Court found that the question whether that interpretation was correct raised a substantial question of law warranting reference.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the reference application, and the question of law was directed to be referred to the High Court.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded by securing a reference on the legal question, without any adjudication on the underlying merits of the drawback claim.

---