1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.2901 of 2008 [Western Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of Mah.] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's Orders or or Registrar's order. directions. Mr. S.C. Mehadia, Adv., for the petitioner. Mrs. T.D. Khade, AGP for respondent. ------ CORAM : J. H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 23rd March, 2009. Heard learned counsel or the parties. According to petitioner, a set-off was claimed under Rule 41-D of the Bombay Sales Tax Rules on Item Nos. 8, 9 and 10 shown in the List of Items. Thereafter, both the appeals were rejected. Hence this petition. Learned AGP Mrs. Khade points out that the petitioner has still a remedy of 2 making an application to the Tribunal to refer the Question of Law to the High Court, and if the Tribunal refuses to refer, he can still make an application to High Court seeking a direction to the Tribunal to refer the question to the High Court in view of the provisions of Section 61 (1) of the Bombay Sales Acts Act, 1959. According to her, as this remedy is available under the Act, Writ Petition should not be entertained. She points out that a similar view was taken by the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 3222 of 2007 [State of Maharashtra & ors. Vs. M/s. Shree Mahila Griha Udyog Lijjat Papad]. In view of this legal position, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner shall have a liberty to make an application to the Tribunal under Section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, to refer the Question of Law to the High Court. If such application is made within four weeks from this day, the question of limitation will not be raised on behalf of the Government, as stated by learned AGP. With the aforesaid order, Writ Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE |hedau| 3