TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thereafter, on 23rd December, 1982 the petitioner made an application for renewal of the eligibility certificate for the period 1st April, 1982 to 31st March, 1983. On 29th April, 1983 the petitioners also applied for the renewal of the eligibility certificate for the period 1st April, 1983 to 31st March, 1984. On 1st March, 1985 the petitioners' application for grant of eligibility certificate for the period 1st April, 1982 to 31st March, 1983 was rejected by the respondent No. 3. The petitioners made an application for revision of the order before the respondent No. 1 under section 20(3) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. The respondent No. 2, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, dismissed that application by an or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the volume of the business done by the petitioners this was a very small amount for which renewal of registration should not have been denied to the petitioners under rule 3(66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941. The second point urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the application of the petitioners for renewal was kept pending unnecessarily for more than two years. This was contrary to the specific direction and/or departmental circular being Circular No. 519 dated 18th August, 1980 for disposal of the application within two months from the date of receipt of such application. Lastly, it has been contended that in any event, the petitioners had complied with the requirements of maintaining separate books of accounts for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 23rd December, 1982. Undoubtedly, there has been delay on the part of the Additional Commissioner in disposing of that application. But since there is no prescribed period of limitation, I am unable to strike down the order passed on 19th May, 1986 on the ground of gross delay or limitation. The Additional Commissioner has referred in his order dated 1st March 1985 to the inspection report and has stated that it was clear from the report that the dealer did not issue sale bills serially numbered for the goods manufactured in his small-scale units. The report was made known to the dealer. On perusal of the books of accounts the Assistant Commissioner recorded that he was satisfied that the dealer did not issue bills serially for the sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or obtaining that exemption, the dealer must strictly comply with all the requirements in order to claim the exemption. It is for the dealer to establish that he has strictly complied with all the requirements of law. Rule 3(66a) not only confers upon the petitioners the right to claim the benefit of tax exemption but also lays down the conditions for availing of this right. If the conditions are not strictly complied with, the petitioners cannot contend that the eligibility certificate should have been renewed in spite of that. The first point urged in this case, however, needs some consideration. The petitioners have stated that the petitioners have fulfilled all the conditions laid down under the Rules. However, by mistake or by forc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ills or challans which were meant for the newly set up industrial unit of the petitioner were not utilised for other trading transactions. In the facts of this case, I am, therefore, unable to come to finding of fact and uphold the contention that the deviations from the required conditions being trivial, the respondents should have overlooked the deviations and should have held that there was substantial compliance with the requirements of law. It was also urged on behalf of the petitioner that the delay in disposal of the case by the respondents have seriously prejudiced the petitioner. When the goods were sold, the petitioner did not collect the sales tax on the assumption that the eligibility certificate would be renewed in due cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed because of the default of the petitioner. An application for extension was made belatedly on 23rd December, 1982. There is no explanation why the application was made at such a belated stage on the four quarters ending on 31st March, 1983. This writ petition, therefore, must fail and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. However, it is made clear that the petitioner's application for extension of the eligibility certificate will have to be considered on merit for the period 1st April, 1983 to 31st March, 1984 and the subsequent periods. If the petitioner has cured the defects and has fulfilled all the requirements of law, the eligibility certificate must be granted to the petitioner irrespective of defects found in the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
