TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 1004
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the common order dated 11 July 2012 passed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal (the Tribunal) disposing of Six applications filed before it. Three of the applications before the Tribunal were Rectification applications under Section 62 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act,1959(the Act) seeking to modify the common order dated 30 November 2009 passed in respect of Appeal Nos. 1091/2001, 1092/2001 and 1093/2001. The other three applications are applications under Section 61(1) of the Act seeking a reference on questions of law to this Court from the common order dated 30 November 2009 in respect of Appeal Nos. 1091/2001, 1092/2001 and 1093/2001. 2) This petition came up for hearing on 28 June 2013 at which time the Director of petitioner Mrs. Jy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lication dated 2 November 2010. The grievance in the application for rectification dated 2 November 2010 as annexed to the petition appears to be that the order of the Tribunal dated 30 November 2010 dismissing the three appeals was passed incorrectly relying upon an earlier order passed by the Tribunal and that even if, the earlier order passed by the Tribunal applies the principle of resjudicata would not apply to tax matters. This the Tribunal held were debatable issues and not within the scope of the rectification application but appropriately to be urged before an appellate forum. In the impugned order the Tribunal has whilst dealing with the rectification application pointed out that the order of the Tribunal of which rectification is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut warranting the exercise of our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5) So far as the impugned order dated 11 July 2012 dismissing the three reference applications filed by the petitioner with regard to common order dated 30 November 2009 passed in Appeal Nos. 1091/2001 to 1093/2001, is concerned the questions of law as framed by the petitioner in its reference application before the Tribunal under Section 61(1)of the Act are as under: 1) There is perversity in fining of fact and misconduct in the collection and evaluation of evidence. 2) Finding of fact is vitiated by total non consideration of evidence sought to be produced by appellant and total exclusion of contentions under written arguments and othe....