2000 (5) TMI 1049 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the amendment to Explanation I in Rule 98 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995, to small-scale industrial units set up before September 1, 1999.
2. Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel.
3. Vested Rights and Retrospective Application of Amendments.
4. Clarificatory Nature of the Amendment.
5. Public Interest and Supervening Public Interest.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the Amendment:
The core issue is whether the amendment to Explanation I in Rule 98 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995, by adding clause (v) effective from September 1, 1999, applies to small-scale industrial units (SSI units) that had already started enjoying the tax holiday under Section 39 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994, prior to this date. The amendment states that the tax holiday will not be available to SSI units using the trade mark, brand name, or logo of any other industrial unit. The Tribunal concluded that the amendment could not be applied retroactively to these SSI units, as they had already fulfilled the conditions for the tax holiday before the amendment came into effect.

2. Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel:
Applicants argued that they had set up their units and made investments based on the tax holiday provisions as they existed before the amendment. The State Government, having granted the eligibility certificates (EC) and allowed the tax holiday, could not now impose new conditions that were not in place at the time of the initial grant. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the new clause (v) could not be applied to the applicants due to the doctrine of promissory estoppel, which prevents the State from reneging on its earlier promises that induced the applicants to alter their position.

3. Vested Rights and Retrospective Application of Amendments:
The Tribunal held that the right to enjoy the tax holiday became a vested right once the EC was granted for a specified period. This right could not be taken away by a subsequent amendment unless the amendment explicitly stated that it had retrospective effect. The amendment in question was expressly prospective, and thus could not affect the vested rights of the applicants.

4. Clarificatory Nature of the Amendment:
The respondents contended that the amendment was merely clarificatory, making explicit an implicit condition. However, the Tribunal found this argument unconvincing, noting that the ban on using others' brand names was not included in the rules under the 1994 Act, although it had been in previous legislation. The Tribunal concluded that the amendment was not clarificatory but introduced a new restriction.

5. Public Interest and Supervening Public Interest:
The State argued that the amendment was necessary to prevent big industrial units from indirectly benefiting from the tax holiday intended for SSIs. The Tribunal acknowledged the State's power to amend rules but emphasized that such power is subject to constitutional provisions and cannot infringe on vested rights without clear legislative intent. The Tribunal found no evidence of a supervening public interest that would justify applying the new restriction to the applicants retroactively.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal declared that the amendment to Explanation I in Rule 98, effective from September 1, 1999, does not apply to the applicants' SSI units for the duration of their respective tax holiday periods. The applicants are entitled to the tax holiday for the full period of five years as initially granted. The Tribunal directed the respondents to issue or extend the ECs for the full five-year period where necessary and to refrain from denying way bills based on non-compliance with the new clause (v).

← Previous Next →