TMI Blog1990 (12) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partnership firm, started its business of manufacturing aluminium die castings from the year 1982. It applied for registration under section 8 of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, on April 8, 1983 and was registered on July 16, 1983. The firm was also registered provisionally as a small-scale unit on November 20, 1983 and the said certificate was converted into a permanent one with effect from August 23, 1983. The applicant is entitled to be exempted from payment of tax under rule 3(66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 (hereinafter called "the Rules"), for a period of 5 years from the date of its first sale of manufactured goods, i.e., from May 29, 1982, as a newly set up small-scale industry, within the' area of Calcutta Me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inly on the ground that the applicant is entitled to tax exemption under rule 3(66) of the Rules, and should have been given eligibility certificate under the said rule for a period of 5 years from May 29, 1982. It also claims that the eligibility certificate should have been effective from the date of first sale of manufactured goods by it and not from the date of its liability to pay tax. At the time of argument the learned advocate for the applicant further invoked the doctrine of promissory estoppel to support the case. 4.. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The respondents, therefore, have not filed any affidavit-in-opposition. They have, however, opposed the application on the ground that the case does not fall within rule 3( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... renewal under rule 3(66). According to him, it was only at the time the order on the prayer for the second renewal was passed that the applicant came to know that the case was being treated as one under rule 3(66a). Learned State Representative rejected the contention as indicated in the preceding paragraph. 6.. It is true that eligibility certificates under rule 3(66) and rule 3(66a) are issued in form XXXVI and form XXXVIA respectively, but their contents and language are the same except that the respective rules are mentioned in the forms. In the form issued in this case rule 3(66a) was mentioned at two places though correction was not made in the said form by adding "A" after "form XXXVI". This is a minor irregularity. It is clear tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rule. He further submitted that the applicant was callous and not diligent enough as the application for eligibility certificate was filed on May 11, 1984, after about 10 months of the date of accrual of liability to pay tax. He observed that the applicant could have proved his bona fides if it had filed the application immediately after July 16, 1983, when the liability accrued. He relied on a decision of this Tribunal in case No. RN-518 of 1989 (Dr. Sankarananda Guha v. Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes*), with regard to the interpretation of the relevant clause. 9.. It may be useful to refer to clause (iv) of rule 3(66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941. This is reproduced below: "(iv) A dealer shall apply for a certificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holiday available to the applicant was curtailed from 5 years to 3 years. Though in the plaint this notification has not been challenged but subsequently at the stage of argument the doctrine of promissory estoppel was invoked. In this connection Mr. Ganguly relied on a number of decisions of High Courts and Supreme Court, namely, [1987] 65 STC 1 (SC) (Pournami Oil Mills v. State of Kerala), [1987] 65 STC 430 (SC) (State of Bihar v. Usha Martin Industries Ltd.), [1979] 44 STC 42 (SC) (Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh), [1988] 70 STC 248 (Cal) (Daga Metal Industries v. Commercial Tax Officer), [1986] 61 STC 193 *Reported in [1994] 93 STC 408 supra. (Pat) (Malpani Chemical Works v. State of Bihar) and [1986 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of five years from the date it starts its production, even if that period may go beyond the life of the notification. In the second case the Full Bench of the High Court referring to the "fluctuating fortunes of granting of exemption, its unceremonious withdrawal and its cryptic restoration at various times" commented that "the State of Bihar in its wisdom temperamentally granted the exemption or withdrew or restored it at will for reasons, which appear to be not rationally discernible". In the present case rule 3(66), though modified, remained in the statute along with rule 3(66a) and there was no question of withdrawal or restoration at will at various times. 16.. It is pertinent to note that even the condition laid down in rule 3(66) b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
