mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SALES TAX APPLICATION NO.72 OF 2009 IN REFERE3NCE APPLICATION NO.188 OF 2008 The Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (VAT) 3, Mumbai. ..Petitioner Vs. M/s.D.G.P. Hinoday Industries Ltd. ..Respondents Ms. I.Calcuttawala, AGP for the Petitioner. Mr. P.C. Joshi, for the Respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : 25TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 P.C. We are informed by the Bar that this Court in other Applications has called for reference on similar questions. In the light of that the following two questions referred to the Tribunal for reference to this Court:- “(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the provisions contained in Explanation IV to Rule 31 B of the BST Rules, 1959, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the said provision contemplate deferment of payment of tax or taxes after reduction of set-off admissible in respect of raw materials and not in respect of purchase of plant and machinery. (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and the provisions contained in Explanation IV to Rule 31B of the BST Rules, 1959, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant was entitled to receive the set-off in respect of plant and machinery as cash refund.” 2. Learned Tribunal is directed to make a Reference to this Court within eight weeks of the order of this Court being served on the Tribunal. Application disposed off accordingly. (D.G. KARNIK,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)