THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, MUMBAI vs SUPERPHONE INDIA LTD. PUNE

Judgment text excerpt

34-STR-94-2009-J-F.DOCX Amol IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SALES TAX REFERENCE NO. 94 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, 8th Floor, Vikrikar Bhavan, Sardar Balwantsingh Dhodi Marg, Mazgaon, Mumbai – 400 00. …Applicant Versus M/s Superphone India Ltd E-22 Electronic Zone, M.I.D.C. Bhosari, Pune. …Respondent ______________________________________________________ Ms Jyoti Chavan, Addl GP, and Mr Himanshu Takke, AGP, for Applicant. ______________________________________________________ CORAM: M.S. Sonak & Advait M. Sethna, JJ. DATED: 11 September 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT :- Per M. S. Sonak, J 1. Heard Ms Chavan and Mr Takke for the applicant. 2. The Respondent is duly served. However, neither any representative of the Respondents nor any Advocate on their behalf appears in this reference. AMOL PREMNATH JADHAV 3. This reference was made by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Digitally signed by Tribunal (Tribunal) under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax AMOL PREMNATH JADHAV Date: 2025.09.16 Act 1959 (said Act) by a common Judgment and Order dated 20:20:18 +0530 Page 1 of 18 34-STR-94-2009-J-F.DOCX 6 December 2002, referring the following questions for the determination of this Court. “(i) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law in holding that it is open to the Tribunal in deciding a Second Appeal under Section 55(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 against the Order summarily rejecting the First Appeal for non-payment of Part Payment fixed by the First Appellate Authority to interfere with the amounts fixed by the First Appellate Authority towards Part Payment on the ground that the said Authority has not exercised the discretion properly, even though the Respondent has not challenged the validity o