TMI Blog1990 (2) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the consequent action with regard to assessment and realisation of taxes for the relevant period by the Commercial Tax Officer. 2.. The applicant's case may be briefly stated as follows: The applicant, Dr. Sankarananda Guha, carries on business under the trade name M/s. Gayatri Chemicals as its sole proprietor, manufacturing industrial chemicals like sodium sulphate, ammonium chloride and sodium formate for sale in West Bengal. He started manufacturing business after April 1, 1980 and obtained SSI registration on June 11, 1980. The first sale of manufactured goods took place on June 4, 1981. As the taxable quantum exceeded Rs. 50,000 on November 1, 1981, his liability to pay tax under section 4(2) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. Hence this application. 3.. It is the case of the applicant that his earlier application dated November 25, 1981, praying for eligibility certificate, which was filed within time, should have been considered by the Assistant Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner. It is further the case of the applicant that in the event it is found necessary to treat the letter dated May 2, 1984 as the application for the first time praying for exemption, this should have been entertained in terms of proviso to rule 3(66)(iv), as he was a dealer registered prior to April 14, 1983. 4.. The respondents have opposed the application on the ground that no such application dated November 25, 1981, as has been claimed by the applicant, has been file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry 16, 1985 and April 10, 1985, in which the applicant explained the circumstances for condonation of delay. Shri Majumdar further submitted that no such application dated November 25, 1981, was entered in the register of such applications, though such a register was/is maintained in the regular course of official business. It has been stated by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, in his affidavit-in-opposition that "no such application dated November 25, 1981, has been filed in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Howrah Circle. I further state that since the petitioner obtained registration on January 6, 1983, the question of filing application for eligibility certificate on any day prior to the said Janua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvation in this case is reproduced below: "The further requirement of rule 3(66)(iv) is that a dealer shall apply for a certificate of eligibility on or before April 14, 1983. In other words, the production of the new industrial unit must start for the first time before 14th March, 1983 and the application for a certificate of eligibility must be made within a month, i.e., before 14th April, 1983. However, there is a proviso to rule 3(66)(iv). The proviso enables a registered dealer to apply for a certificate of eligibility on or after 1st April, 1983. In other words, a registered dealer in whose unit production has commenced on or before 14th March, 1983, may apply for a certificate of eligibility on or after 1st April, 1983. No time-limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... new scheme came into operation with effect from April 1, 1983, no application under rule 3(66) could be filed after March 31, 1983, except by registered dealers, who could apply till April 14, 1983. This grace period was given to the registered dealers, whose liability to pay sales tax had already accrued, so that they were not prejudicially affected, as certain benefits admissible under rule 3(66) were curtailed and certain industries, which were eligible for tax holiday as per the scheme of rule 3(66), would subsequently not be so eligible in accordance with the new scheme of rule 3(66a). Shri Majumdar urged that these two sub-rules along with the relevant proviso should be harmoniously and reasonably construed against the background of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that an open-ended time-limit has been prescribed for filing of the application for eligibility certificate by a registered dealer. We are, therefore, unable to accept the interpretation of the proviso to rule 3(66)(iv) made in the abovementioned Anadi Nath Halder's case (printed infra); (1989) 22 STA 291 (Cal). Such an interpretation, in our opinion, will render the main clause nugatory and otiose to a substantial extent and frustrate the very purpose of the enactment. 14.. We are in agreement with the observation of the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, that the application, which was filed beyond April 14, 1983 was time-barred and there was no provision envisaging exercise of any discretion to accept the application by condon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
