(1.) AS the issues raised in these two petitions arise out of common transaction and common proceedings, both these petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. Facts in Writ Petition No. 2599 of 2002 : The moot point raised by the Commissioner of Sales Tax in this petition is, on a rectification application filed under section 62 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 ("the BST Act", for short) by a third party who is not directly affected by the adjudication, whether, the Tribunal can recall its order passed under section 55 of the BST Act and rehear the matter on merits ?
(2.) THE facts narrated in the petition are as follows : Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ("bpcl", for short) - the respondent No. 2 herein, is engaged in the business of refining and marketing petroleum products. THE BPCL, inter alia, manufactures SKO (LABFS ). (LINEAR ALKYL BENZENE FEED STOCK) ordinarily known as kerosene and sells the same to various parties. THE said kerosene manufactured by BPCL contains N-paraffin. THE Reliance Industries Limited ("ril", for short) has a petro chemical plant at Patalganga wherein petro chemical products are manufactured. RIL requires N-paraffin for use in its plant. Pursuant to a contract dated August 24, 1992 entered into by and in-between BPCL and RIL, BPCL was to supply kerosene containing N-paraffin through a pipeline from BPCL's refinery at Mahur to the plant of RIL at Patalganga. RIL extracted N-paraffin from the said kerosene and returned balance kerosene to BPCL in the return stream. RIL retained 5 per cent of the kerosene in the form of N-paraffin and residual kerosene of 95 per cent is returned by RIL to BPCL.
(3.) BEING aggrieved by the above adjudication order of the Commissioner of Sales Tax pertaining to question No. 2, BPCL, filed an appeal before the Tribunal under section 55 of the BST Act. There being no dispute regarding the determination of questions Nos. 1 and 3, the appeal filed by the BPCL was restricted to the determination pertaining to question No. 2 only. The Tribunal after hearing BPCL passed an order on April 21, 2001 confirming the order of the Commissioner of Sales Tax by holding that the kerosene returned by RIL to BPCL cannot be said to be "goods returned" within the meaning of rule 4 of the BST Rules. The Tribunal held that in view of the admission on the part of BPCL that an important ingredient, namely, N-paraffin is extracted by RIL from the kerosene supplied by the BPCL, the kerosene without N-paraffin received by BPCL from RIL cannot be said to be return of the goods originally supplied by BPCL to RIL. In other words, the Tribunal held that the return of kerosene (without N-paraffin) would constitute sale of kerosene by RIL to BPCL.