mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SALES TAX APPLICATION NO.76 OF 2009 IN REFERENCE APPLICATION NO.115 OF 2008 M/s.Khandesh Extraction Ltd. ..Applicant Vs. The Commissioner of Sales Tax. ..Respondent WITH SALES TAX APPLICATION NO.77 OF 2009 IN REFERENCE APPLICATION NO.116 OF 2008 M/s.Khandesh Extraction Ltd. ..Applicant Vs. The Commissioner of Sales Tax. ..Respondent WITH SALES TAX APPLICATION NO.51 OF 2009 IN REFERENCE APPLICATION NO.119 OF 2008 M/s.Khandesh Extraction Ltd. ..Applicant Vs. The Commissioner of Sales Tax. ..Respondent Mrs. N.R. Badheka with Ms. Lata Nagal for the Applicants Mr. S.S. Joshi, AGP for Respondents CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : 18TH SEPTEMBER , 2009 P.C. After hearing parties, in our opinion, the following questions arise for consideration:- “(a).Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Honourable Tribunal was justified in holding that the Oil cake and de Oiled cake are different commodities despite clear finding that the residue in both the type of process is Oil cake with only difference that de Oiled cake has lesser Oil contents. (b)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Honourable Tribunal was justified in holding that even though no new commodity comes into existence the Purchase Tax under Section 13AA under the B.S.T. Act is leviable. (c) Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the curtailment of set-off under Rule 41-D, 41-F and Rule 42-I without verifying details and working thereof.” 2. In the light of that the learned Tribunal is directed to make reference of the aforesaid questions to this Court within eight weeks. Applications disposed off accordingly. (D.G. KARNIK,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)