IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SALES TAX APPLICTION NO. 7 OF 2010 IN REFERENCE APPLICATION NO. 55 OF 2008 The Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (VAT)3, Mumbai. ... Applicant. V/s. M/s.Johnson and Johnson Limited. ... Respondent. V.A.Sonpal, `A’ Panel Counsel for the applicant. Mrs.Niketa Bhadeka for the respondent. CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND S.J.KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATED : 6th August 2010. P.C. : Perused application. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The issue involved herein relates to interpretation of Schedule Entry C-II-34 and C-II-37. The Tribunal’s judgment is based on the Apex Court judgment in the case of BPL Pharmaceuticals v. Collector of Central Excise, 104 STR 64 arising out of the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act. To what extent the said judgment will have an effect on the interpretation of entries under the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act needs consideration. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal is directed to state the statement of case and refer the following question of law for the consideration of this Court. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and on true and proper interpretation of the provisions, Schedule Entry C-II-34 and of Schedule Entry C-II-37 of the B.S.T.Act, 1959, the Tribunal was justified in holding that, the Shampoo sold by the respondent under the brand name “Nizral” is drug and is covered by the Schedule Entry C-II-37 of the B.S.T.Act, 1959 and not by the Schedule Entry C-II-34 of the said Act?” 3. Tribunal is also directed to forward compilations of documents filed by the respective parties so as to enable this Court to take proper view of the matter. 4. Application stands disposed of in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) (V.C.DAGA J.)