1989 (8) TMI 339 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues: Eligibility for tax relief under rule 3(66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 based on the commencement of production, application timeline, and issuance of serially numbered cash/credit memos.

Analysis:

The petitioner, a manufacturer of coconut oil and oil-cakes, applied for an eligibility certificate under rule 3(66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the application citing reasons such as the commencement of production post the statutory period, late application submission, and the use of two sets of sale memos with identical serial numbers. The rejection was primarily based on these grounds. The Additional Commissioner, on revision, acknowledged that production started within the statutory period but maintained that the application was submitted after the deadline. However, the Additional Commissioner noted that only a registered dealer could apply for the certificate of eligibility post-April 1, 1983. The petitioner was registered on June 6, 1983, and applied for the certificate on June 8, 1983.

The objective of rule 3(66) is to promote new small-scale industries by providing tax relief under specified conditions. The Additional Commissioner confirmed that the petitioner's production started within the required period. There was a dispute regarding the issuance of serially numbered cash/credit memos for the goods sold by the petitioner. While the Assistant Commissioner highlighted the use of two sets of memos, the Additional Commissioner did not base the rejection on this ground. The statute requires the issuance of serially numbered memos for goods manufactured in the new industry without specifying a single set for all goods. This aspect was not conclusively addressed by the Additional Commissioner.

Rule 3(66)(iv) mandates that the application for eligibility must be submitted before April 14, 1983, with a proviso allowing registered dealers to apply post-April 1, 1983, without a time limit. The petitioner, being registered on June 6, 1983, falls within this proviso. Consequently, the petitioner's application should not have been dismissed based on the delay in submission. The court held in favor of the petitioner, stating that the application met the requirements under the proviso of rule 3(66)(iv) and directed the issuance of the eligibility certificate as requested in the petition.

In conclusion, the writ petition succeeded, and the court ordered the issuance of the eligibility certificate. No costs were awarded in the matter.