JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. B. P. SARAF, J. - By this reference under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1959, the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal, Bombay, has referred the following question of law to this Court for opinion at the instance of the Revenue : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sale of machinery effected on January 10, 1979, after the cessation of production (which the applicant claims a closure of business) was in the course of business and therefore, liable to tax ?" 2. As is evident from the above question the controversy in this case is whether the tax can be levied under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, on the sale of machinery effected on January 10, 1979, after the cessation of production which was claimed to be a closure of the business. The learned counsel for the Revenue fairly stated before us that the above controversy has now been set at rest by the amendment of the definition of "business" by Maharashtra Act No. 9 of 1988 to include within the definition of "business" "any transaction in connection with or incidental or ancillary to the commencement or closure of such trade, commerce, manufacture, adventure or concern". It was pointed out that the above amendment though made in the year 1988 has been given retrospective effect from July 1, 1981. In view of the above amendment, according to the learned counsel for the Revenue, sales of machinery effected even after the closure of a business would fall within the definition of sale of goods by a dealer in the course of business. We asked the learned counsel for the Revenue whether the Legislature having given retrospective effect to the said definition specifically from July 1, 1981, it was open to the Revenue to contend that the amended definition should be applied even to transactions of sales of machinery effected prior to that date. Mr. Desai, the learned counsel for the Revenue, however, was fair enough to submit that even if it were possible to contend so in view of the Legislature itself having fixed a cut-off date for the application of amended definition it would not be just and fair on their part to raise the above contention. 3. Mr. Desai, the learned counsel for the Revenue, however, was fair enough to submit that even if it were possible to contend so in view of the Legislature itself having fixed a cut-off date for the application of amended definition it would not be just and fair on their part to raise the above contention. 3. In view of the above, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee. No costs. Reference answered in the negative.