TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1956? Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that provisions of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 particularly section 18 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 is not applicable to the transaction in dispute? Held that:- The orders passed by the Tribunal rejecting the reference applications filed by the Commissioner cannot be faulted. See Sales Tax v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. [2006 (12) TMI 464 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. Hence, we dismiss both the aforesaid sales tax applications with no order as to costs. - Sales Tax Application Nos. 3,18 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 13-6-2008 - RADHAKRISHNAN S. AND NIRGUDE A.V. , JJ. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Senior Counsel f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax under the BST Act, 1959 or CST Act, 1956? (b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that provisions of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 particularly section 18 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 is not applicable to the transaction in dispute? Even in the earlier Sales Tax Application Nos. 10 of 2006 and 11 of 2006, the aforesaid two identical questions were raised except the amount which were different, otherwise they were identical. Mr. Jetly, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-assessee pointed out that as identical questions of law were raised in Reference Application Nos. 3 of 2002 and 4 of 2002 the Tribunal had refused to refer the same to this court. Agg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on behalf of the applicant, states that by an earlier order dated December 1, 2006(1), this court had declined to refer question Nos. 1 and 2 mentioning therein, that they were academic in nature, and in an appropriate case the department could agitate these questions before an appropriate forum. When we queried Mr. Sonpal, whether or not, except for the amount involved in the above, questions of law and all other facts and circumstances are identical, Mr. Sonpal is unable to controvert the same. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the judgment of our court dated December 1, 2006(1) in Sales Tax Application Nos. 10 of 2006 and 11 of 2006 and also in view of the fact that the honourable Supreme Court ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
