9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Tribunal on March 23, 2001, there was a clear impression that ice-creams would be covered within the meaning of "sweets" and in fact right from January 1, 1960 till June 30, 1981 and even after July 1, 1981 till the aforesaid decision, every one had an impression that ice-creams were covered within the entry "sweets" and "sweetmeats". Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any substantial question of law in the above, since the Tribunal had fairly on a rational basis exercised its discretion in favour of the assessee to give prospective effect. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground made out for interfering with the above and the above sales tax applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n entry 374 and even the previous liability of the applicant was not permitted under section 52(2) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent along with another appellant had approached the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal. The said Tribunal by a detailed judgment dated March 23, 2001 concurred with a view of the Commissioner of Sales Tax that ice-creams were not eligible to tax concession under notification entry 374 and that the ice-creams were liable to tax at eight per cent under Schedule C of Part II of entry 35(1) was confirmed. Before the Tribunal, the respondent had strongly argued that even our High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Mangharam and Company [1976] 37 STC 599 had came to a conclusion that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Sales Tax had filed an application being Reference Application No. 121 of 2003 before the said Tribunal on the issue of giving prospective effect to the said ruling and sought a reference on the same. The Tribunal, again by a detailed order dated September 30, 2005 had rejected the same and again reiterated that during the period from January 1, 1960 to June 30, 1981 icecreams were admittedly treated and assessed as sweet and sweetmeats . Even after July 1, 1981 ice-creams were not placed in separate Schedule entry but were clubbed in the Schedule entry, which was considered as sweets and sweetmeats . The Tribunal went on further, and had observed that after July 1, 1981 the tax rate was the same and therefore, an impressi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the parties and after perusal of the earlier order dated March 23, 2001 as well as subsequent judgment and order dated September 30, 2005 passed by the Tribunal, it is explicitly clear that till the judgment was delivered by the Tribunal on March 23, 2001, there was a clear impression that ice-creams would be covered within the meaning of sweets and in fact right from January 1, 1960 till June 30, 1981 and even after July 1, 1981 till the aforesaid decision, every one had an impression that ice-creams were covered within the entry sweets and sweetmeats . Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any substantial question of law in the above, since the Tribunal had fairly on a rational basis exercised its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
