THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, M.S., MUMBAI v. TATA IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD.
STR/83/2010 · 2026-08-18
body2010
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2010 DAILYLAW 1867 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2010 DAILYLAW 1867 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
14-STR-83-2010 (OS).DOC Mayur IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SALES TAX REFERENCE NO. 83 OF 2010 The Commissioner Of Sales Tax, M.S., Mumbai … Applicant Versus Tata Iron And Steel Co. Ltd …Respondent Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. G.P, for the Applicant. Mr. Samkit Shah, i/b Mulla and Mulla & Craigie Blunt and Caroe, for the Respondent. CORAM:
SUMAN SHYAM & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ. DATED:
18th AUGUST 2026. PC:-
1. This sales tax reference arises out of the order dated 28th March 2009 passed by the learned Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai, in Reference Application No. 128 of 2008, whereby the learned Tribunal has formulated a question of law and referred the matter to this Court for answering the reference.
2. The question of law so formulated is as under :-
“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the ‘process of conversion of hot rolled sheet/strips/coil MAYUR KONDIRAM ADANE Digitally signed by MAYUR KONDIRAM ADANE Date: 2026.08.19 18:29:01 +0530
14-STR-83-2010 (OS).DOC to cold rolled sheet/strips/coils (inclusive that of reducing thickness in the process of cold rolling); as per requirement, does not amount to ‘manufacture’ within the meaning of the said Term as defined in Section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959.”
3. When the matter was called up, Mr. Samkit Shah, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent, submitted that the Respondent has already paid the entire amount to the Department and, therefore, no live issue survives in the present proceedings. In support of the above submission, Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the Respondent, has produced a copy of the order in Appeal dated 4th March 2024, which is taken on record and marked “X” for identification.
4. Ms. Chavan, learned counsel, also submits that there is no live issue surviving for consideration in the present proceedings. As such, the reference is returned unanswered. However, the question of law framed by the learned Tribunal is kept open to be answered in an appropriate proceeding in accordance with law.
5. Reference stands disposed of.
(ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.) {