1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SALES TAX APPLICATION NO. 85 OF 2008 IN REFERENCE APPLICATION NO. 83 OF 2007 The Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (BST), Mumbai .. Applicant V/s M/s Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. .. Respondent Mr. J. Saluja, A.G.P. For the applicant. Mr. C.B. Thakkar for the respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 7TH AUGUST 2009 P.C. : 1. The revenue has come in appeal to this Court on the following questions: (i) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in changing the date of effect of entitlement certificate i.e. validity period from 15/12/1999 to 14/12/2017, instead of 1/5/2000 to 30/5/2018, particularly 2 when the second appeal is filed and is arising out of the assessment order and same is not at all filed or does not arise out of appeal against the entitled certificate ? (ii) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that it has power to change the date of effect of entitlement certificate in an appeal against the assessment order even though no appeal is filed against the entitlement certificate and due to this fact the contents of entitlement certificate reached its finality ? (iii) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the ratio laid down by the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s.Tiger Steel Engineering (127 STC 13) is applicable to the facts of the present case even though the said case was specifically against the entitlement certificate and the present is specifically filed against the assessment order and it is not at all against the entitlement certificate ? (iv) Whether the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the points of the case properly and has travelled beyond its jurisdiction by changing the date of effect of the entitlement certificate in an 3 appeal filed against the assessment order ? 2. We have perused the order passed by the Reference Court in Second Appeal No.1813 of 2004. The crucial issue is change of date in the entitlement certificate as 15/12/1999 to 14/12/2017 instead of 1/5/2000 to 30/5/2018. 3. The appeal before the Tribunal was in respect of imposition of sales tax during the non-entitlement certificate period, i.e. April 2000. Normally, the Tribunal would not have gone beyond the certificate of entitlement issued by the Competent Authority. 4. In the instant case, we find that the respondent herein had preferred an appeal in Second Appeal No.1813 of 2004 decided on 17/3/2007 where the date of effect of entitlement certificate is changed to 15/12/1999 instead of 1/5/2000. The Revenue has not challenged the same by way of reference. Once the Tribunal allowed the change in the date of entitlement, the Tribunal hearing the Second Appeal No.1813 of 2004 was bound to consider the changed date as the date of entitlement. 5. Considering the above, in our opinion, the questions raised would not arise. 4 6. We make it clear that our order should not be held to affirm the decision of the Tribunal whether an appeal would lie against the order of issuance of entitlement certificate. That issue is kept open for consideration in an appropriate proceeding. 7. With the above observations, the application is disposed of. (D.G. KARNIK, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)