9 STR 47-10-OS.DOC Priya Soparkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SALES TAX REFERENCE NO.47 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai. …Applicant Versus Jay Hind Industries Limited …Respondent Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP with Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. GP for the Applicant-State. Mr. P. C. Joshi, for the Respondent. CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ. DATED: 8th SEPTEMBER, 2026. PC:- 1. Heard Mr. Himanshu Takke, learned AGP appearing for the Applicant-State. Also heard Mr. P. C. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. This Reference is arising out of the order dated 12th January 2009, passed by the learned Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai in Reference Application No.242 of 2008, whereby the learned Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai has referred the following question of law, to be answered by this Court:- “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on true and correct interpretation of Entry C-I- 23(2), the Tribunal was justified in law in holding PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR Digitally signed by PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR Date: 2026.09.10 10:58:21 +0530 9 STR 47-10-OS.DOC that the non-ferrous metal castings, namely aluminium castings manufactured and sold by the respondents (original appellants) are covered by the said entry C-I-23(2)?” 3. Mr. P. C. Joshi, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that this Reference was made purely on account of the facts that another Reference, involving the same question of law in the case of The Commission of Sales Tax Vs. Jai Hind Industries Limited reported in Sales Tax Reference No.1 of 2009 with connected matters decided on 30th October, 2015, was pending before this Court at the relevant point of time. However, by the judgment dated 30th October, 2015, the Division Bench of this Court has already answered the question in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the question of law does not survive in the present Reference. 4. We have perused the judgment dated 30th October, 2015 and found that the second question answered in that case is the same question of law, as reframed to this Court. 5. Mr. Himanshu Takke, learned AGP, in his usual fairness, submits that the matter is covered by the said judgment. 6. In view of the above, nothing survives in this reference. Page 2 of 3 9 STR 47-10-OS.DOC 7. The Reference is, accordingly, disposed of. (ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.) {