THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, MUMBAI vs SUDHA INSTANT SOFT DRINKS AND ESSENCES, NAGPUR

Judgment text excerpt

9-STR-3-2010-F.DOCX Deshmane IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SALES TAX REFERENCE NO. 3 OF 2010 IN REFERENCE APPLICATION NO.68 OF 2004 The Commissioner of Sales Tax, …Applicant Mumbai Versus Sudha Instant Soft Drinks and …Respondent Essences, Nagpur ______________________________________________________ Mr Amar Mishra, AGP for Applicant-State. ______________________________________________________ CORAM: M.S. Sonak & Advait M. Sethna, JJ. DATED: 04 DECEMBER 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT:- (PER M.S. SONAK, J.) 1. Heard M. Mishra for the Applicant. 2. This Reference under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (said Act) refers the following question of law to this Court for its determination: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, is the Tribunal justified in holding that the goods like pineapple slices, pineapple tidbits, fruit cocktail preserved in sugar syrup and canned in vacuum sealed tin containers are fresh fruits and are covered by the scope of the entry A-23 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act and hence not liable to tax?” Page 1 of 10 9-STR-3-2010-F.DOCX 3. The facts and circumstances which give rise to this Reference have been set out in the statement of facts accompanying the Reference. (See pages 10 to 13). Accordingly, we do not reproduce those facts and circumstances in detail in this judgment and order. 4. The Assessee is engaged in the manufacture and sale of juices, instant soft drinks, compounds, powders, essences, etc., and is duly registered under the provisions of the said Act. The Assessee also manufactures various processed food items such as orange juice, tomato juice, mixed fruit jam, pineapple juice, mango juice, pineapple tidbits, tomato purée, pineapple slices, sweetcorn, etc. 5. The record shows