IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 531 OF 1988 Inder Kumar R. Gupta ..Petitioner. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.P.S.Jetly i/by C.B.Kambli advs. For the petitioner. Mr.V.A.Sonpal, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.U.J.Makhija, Sr.Counsel i/by Mulla & Mulla & C.B.C., adv. For the respondent no.3. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 12TH JUNE, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard. 2 Petitioner had purchased certain goods in an auction held by the respondent no.3. He had paid sales tax at 15% in terms of demand made by the respondent no.3. Subsequent thereto, petitioner applied to the respondent no.2 under the provisions of Section 52 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act for determination of the rate of sales tax. It is the submission of the petitioner that the rate is 4% and not 15%. 3 Instead of application being decided, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner dated 24th August, 1987 as to why the application ought not to be rejected. Petitioner replied to the same. As the same was not decided, petitioner moved this Court in the year 1988. Petition is pending since then. 4 The short question is whether the petitioner was entitled to move the application under Section 52 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. Relevant portion of Section 52 reads as under: -2- Section 52: “If any, question arises, otherwise than in proceedings before a Court, or before the Commissioner has commenced assessment or reassessment of a dealer under Section 33 or 35, whether, for the purposes of this Act - (a)................. (b)................. (c).................. (d).................. (e)Any tax is payable in respect of any particular sale or purchase, or if tax is payable the rate thereof, the Commissioner shall make an order determining such question.” 5 It is, therefore, clear from the reading of the relevant provisions that the application can be moved not only by a dealer but by any person who is liable to pay tax. In the instant case, petitioner on the demand made by the respondent no.3 has paid the tax. Issue before the respondent no.2 would be whether tax is chargeable at 15% or as already paid by the petitioner or 4% as claimed by the petitioner based on the documentary evidence, which is annexed to the petition. Language of the section is clear. We find question of issuing show-cause notice did not at all arise. Respondent no.2 at the highest could have dismissed the application if it was not maintenable. Application could not have been kept pending for all these years. In our opinion, considering the terminology used any person and/or a dealer, an application both by any person or a dealer - 3- is maintenable. 6 In these circumstances, respondent no.2 is directed to dispose off the application considering the reply filed by the petitioner within three months from today. 7 Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)