https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782222 The dispute concerned whether a Section 52 determination under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 could extend to a dealer who had not applied for it, and whether tax on ice-cream could be levied prospectively or retrospectively. The Court noted the Revenue's objection to extending the benefit of a determination to a non-applicant dealer, while also recognising the competing argument that parity and consistency may support similar treatment where the product and facts are identical. It further observed that the controversy was substantially covered by the earlier decision in Kwality Frozen Foods Ltd. approving prospective levy, and returned the reference unanswered, leaving the wider issues open for another case. en-us Fri, 21 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Nov 2025 08:36:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782222 The dispute concerned whether a Section 52 determination under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 could extend to a dealer who had not applied for it, and whether tax on ice-cream could be levied prospectively or retrospectively. The Court noted the Revenue's objection to extending the benefit of a determination to a non-applicant dealer, while also recognising the competing argument that parity and consistency may support similar treatment where the product and facts are identical. It further observed that the controversy was substantially covered by the earlier decision in Kwality Frozen Foods Ltd. approving prospective levy, and returned the reference unanswered, leaving the wider issues open for another case. Case-Laws VAT / Sales Tax Fri, 21 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782222