TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1070
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. The respondent, though, is neither present nor represented. This is a reference of the year 2010 and therefore, can brook no further delay. By this reference, the Tribunal has referred the following substantial questions for the determination of this Court:- "A. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in taxing the sales of "Listerine Mouth Wash" @ 4% as against 15% levied in the appeal proceeding, on the basis of order granting prospective effect in Miscellaneous Application No.171 of 2001 filed by the opponent in spite of the fact that the order in Miscellaneous Application No.171 of 2001 was not accepted by the revenue and consequential legal steps were being taken ?" B. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....venue has sought and obtained the present reference. 7. Ms. Chavan and Mr. Takke pointed out that the order dated 28 February 2002 disposing of Miscellaneous Application No. 171 of 2001 in Appeal No. 158 of 1995 was challenged by the Revenue before this Court vide Writ Petition No. 968 of 2003. This was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 25 September 2009 and is now reported as Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal and Ors (2010) 30 VST 88 (Bom). 8. This Court did interfere with the impugned order inter alia on the ground of non-consideration of the limitation plea. However, this Court noted that Section 52 of the Sales Tax Act confers power on the Commissioner to decide the matters referred to therein,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dered by the Tribunal. The specific ground of giving prospective effect to the order of the Commissioner was not considered by the Tribunal. Two separate rectification applications, one bearing No. 73 of 1997 by respondent No. 2 and another bearing No. 71 of 1997 by Johnson & Johnson Ltd. filed before it, were decided by the Tribunal by a common judgment. Though respondent No. 2 specifically raised a ground that the Commissioner ought to have given specific prospective effect to his order under section 52(2) of the Act and had pointed out that the said point was not dealt with by the Tribunal in the first order, it was not dealt with by the Tribunal even in the application for rectification. Again this mistake appears to have occurred becau....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....being in any way influenced by any of the observations in the impugned order dated February 28, 2002 which is hereby set aside. For these reasons, rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. The impugned order dated February 28, 2001 is set aside. However, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the rectification application No. 73 of 1997 afresh as regards the issue of prospective effect to be given to the order of the Commissioner under section 52(2) of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. 11. Since, in this case, the Tribunal had relied upon the order of 28 February 2001 and this Court has now set that order aside, but the matter has been remanded ....