Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Order Date: 6 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai (Applicant‑State) versus Richardson & Crudas (1972) Limited (Respondent).
  • Reference No. 69 of 2017 arising from Tribunal order dated 4 March 2006 (Reference Applications Nos. 45 & 46 of 2002) which had framed two questions of law concerning the interpretation of the first proviso to sub‑section 4A of section 33 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.
  • The questions: (i) whether the proviso is mandatory, not directory; (ii) whether its applicability extends to the entire section 33, not only sub‑section 4A.
  • Counsel: Ms Jyoti Chavan, Addl. GP for the Applicant; Ms Nikita Badheka, counsel for the Respondent, assisted by Parth Badheka and Lata Nagal.
  • The Court noted that the two questions were essentially identical and did not constitute a genuine question of law.
  • The Court referred to the Division Bench judgment in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State v. Lucas India Services Ltd., which had already answered the issue in favour of the assessee, citing the Supreme Court decision in Debaki Debi (1964) as persuasive authority.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the questions framed by the Tribunal did not survive for consideration; the reference was deemed devoid of merit and was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Topics: Sales Tax, Legal Interpretation