1991 (4) TMI 423 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to revisional order declaring eligibility certificate invalid under West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application challenging a revisional order by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, declaring an eligibility certificate invalid. The applicant, a dealer in corrugated paper products, had obtained eligibility certificates under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954. The Additional Commissioner revised the order granting renewal of the eligibility certificate for a specific period under the 1941 Act, leading to the challenge. The Additional Commissioner contended that the tax-holiday period should be computed from the date of the first sale of goods, resulting in the curtailment of the eligibility period.

The applicant argued that the two statutes were separate and independent, with eligibility certificates having no bearing on each other. The applicant emphasized that the exercise of suo motu revision was unwarranted, as there was no new material justifying the withdrawal of benefits already granted. Additionally, the applicant highlighted the prejudice caused by the curtailment of the eligibility period after assessments had been completed, leading to potential additional tax liability and procedural complications.

The respondents opposed the application, asserting that the benefit of tax exemption should be granted to the dealer as the sole beneficiary, irrespective of the product type. They argued that correcting the alleged mistake made by the Assistant Commissioner was necessary to align with the scheme, citing a previous Tribunal decision in support.

The Tribunal deliberated on whether the exemption under the statutes should be treated as a composite one for a specific industrial unit, ultimately deciding that the case could be resolved based on equity and justice considerations. Given the short duration of the tax exemption period and the potential adverse impact on the applicant due to the revision, the Tribunal concluded that the suo motu revision should not have been pursued in the interest of justice and fair play. Consequently, the Additional Commissioner's revisional order was set aside, allowing the applicant's challenge.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the application, setting aside the Additional Commissioner's order, with unanimous agreement among the Tribunal members.