# DUPHAR INTERFRAN LTD. vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Court: Bombay High Court
Date: 2025-11-21
Citation: STR/9/2012
Petitioner: DUPHAR INTERFRAN LTD.
Respondent: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

[Official PDF on Bombay High Court website](https://bombayhighcourt.gov.in/bhc/file/download/eyJpdiI6IjViVUhyWUhxcWF4cFdGNzBhVDB4N1E9PSIsInZhbHVlIjoiTXphN3dlUnZlMDlwaDRwS2xkMHYzWDJ2VDc4cExTNTExdVlvaEQ2a2lNbVlWMXRBOSt0MlVsT21xbERxZlBUTXBkc0Q4akJmSWFHekxYQ0RRRm5FeFE9PSIsIm1hYyI6IjcxYjE3OGE4N2VlNGNiZjMxOTZkNmJkMDI5ODc4ZjA3ZTRkY2NhM2M4ZWViOGJlZDVmNTc1Njk4ZjExNzhhZmQiLCJ0YWciOiIifQ==?expires=1782774429&signature=6bd5534fb545d9241aa374b409d35075888fb7e5421538ccc723aa27b99a0afc)

## Judgment text (excerpt)

1. Heard Mr. Patkar, learned counsel for the Applicant and Ms. Jyoti Chavan, learned Additional Government Pleader for the This judgment is corrected pursuant to speaking to the minutes order dated 6 January 2026. SPK-STR-9-2012.DOCX Respondent. With the assistance of the learned counsels, we have perused the record and proceedings before us. Issue for Consideration: 2. The Sales Tax Reference (“STR” for short) arises from judgment and order dated 5 May 2010 of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal at Mumbai (5th Bench) (“Tribunal” for short) in Reference Application Nos.186 and 187 of 2008. The Tribunal framed the following question for reference to this Court:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Brand Acquisition Agreement dated 18/01/1996 in respect of trademark ‘Crocin’ entered into by M/s. Duphar Interfran Ltd. with M/s. SKB Play PLC, London is an agreement to sale and such sale is a sale within the State of Maharashtra liable to tax at 4% in terms of Schedule Entry C-I-26 appended to the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959?” 3. Apropos the above, an interesting point arises for our determination in the given f

https://niyam.ai/judgements/high-court/2025/november/duphar-interfran-ltd-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra