1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi SALES TAX REFERENCE NO. 10 OF 2005 WITH SALES TAX REFERENCE NO. 1 OF 2006. M/s. Chemical Terminal Trombay Ltd. ..Applicant. v/s. The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .... Mr. P.C. Joshi, for Applicant. Ms. Uma Palsule Desai, AGP, for Respondent with Mr. P.R. Gangamwar, Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax (Legal), present. .... CORAM : V. C. DAGA & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : 18TH JUNE 2010. P.C. Heard. Perused References. 2. Both these References are arising out of the order of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Mumbai. The question referred for the opinion of this Court reads as under :- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true construction of the provisions of the Maharashtra Lease Act, 1985 (Lease Act), the Tribunal was justified in law to hold the applicants liable for payment of tax on the lease rentals received/receivable by them under the Lease Agreements executed prior to 1/10/1986.” 2 3. Heard Mr. P.C. Joshi, Learned Counsel for the Applicant. He submits that the question referred is clearly answered by the Apex Court in the case of 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd. & Another vs. State of Maharashtra, 2000 (119) STC 182 followed by this Court in a judgment delivered in Writ Petition Nos.3761 of 1987 and 3762 of 1987 in the matter of I.G.E. (India) Limited vs. C.S. Naik, Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax & Ors. and M/s. Vimal Star Leasing Corporation vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., respectively, decided on 24th September 2002, to which one of us (Daga, J.) is the party. 4. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that the issue is not covered by the judgment of the Apex Court referred to hereinabove. 5. In view of the rival contentions, we were required to go through the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd. & Another (supra) and also un-reported judgment and order of this Court in the case of I.G.E. (India) Ltd. (supra). 6. Having gone through the same, we are of the considered view that the question is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court in the case of 20th Century Finance Corporation Ltd. and un-reported judgment and order of 3 this Court in the case of I.G.E. (India) Ltd. (supra). 7. In the above view of the matter, for the reasons recorded in the above judgments, the question referred for our consideration is answered in negative i.e. against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee-Applicant. 8. In the result, both the References accordingly stand disposed of with no order as to costs. [ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ] [V. C. DAGA, J. ]