Issues: Whether an assessee who had been granted a five-year tax holiday under an earlier exemption notification could be denied the benefit for the unexpired period because of a later amendment and a subsequent notification issued prospectively.

Analysis: The exemption under the earlier notification was granted specifically to newly set up industries and created an enforceable entitlement for the promised period. The later amendment and the notification issued pursuant to it were prospective in operation and were framed in a different, more general setting. The later notification was not expressed to be in supersession of the earlier one, and the earlier concession could not be curtailed for the balance period merely because the statutory provision was amended. The principle of promissory estoppel and the vested nature of the exemption were relied upon only to the extent necessary to hold that the accrued benefit could not be withdrawn midstream.

Conclusion: The subsequent amendment and notification did not affect the assessee's entitlement to the unexpired portion of the tax holiday.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax exemption granted by a special notification for a fixed period creates a vested entitlement for that period, and a later prospective amendment or general notification cannot curtail the unexpired benefit unless the earlier concession is expressly withdrawn or superseded.

Issues: Whether the seizure of goods in transit and the consequential penalty under section 73 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 read with rule 214C of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 were sustainable.

Analysis: The transport of goods from West Bengal to outside the State required compliance with the prescribed way bill or challan requirements. The seizure, however, was founded only on a bare assertion that some challans appeared to be fake and on an alleged confession by the driver, without any explanation as to why the challans were treated as fake. No witness was made to sign the seizure on the alleged confession, no endorsement showed that the grounds were explained to the driver in a language understood by him, and no material was recorded to connect the alleged fake challans specifically with the petitioner's consignments, especially when the truck carried consignments of others as well. The Tribunal also noted that the seizure preceded the insertion of sub-section (2A) in section 73, and that an omnibus allegation without supporting material could not justify seizure in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The seizure and the consequential penalty were held to be unsustainable and were quashed. The question was decided in favour of the petitioner, though refund was directed to be made to the transporter and not to the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded on the merits, and the impugned seizure and penalty did not survive judicial scrutiny.

Ratio Decidendi: A seizure of goods in transit under the sales tax transit-control provisions cannot be sustained on vague and unsupported allegations of fake documents or an uncorroborated alleged confession, particularly where the record does not establish a direct nexus between the alleged defect and the dealer's consignments.

Issues: (i) Whether penalty could be sustained on HDPE fabrics treated as exempt from sales tax; (ii) whether the penalty relatable to multifilament yarn required reconsideration and remand.

Issue (i): Whether penalty could be sustained on HDPE fabrics treated as exempt from sales tax.

Analysis: HDPE fabrics were accepted as goods not liable to sales tax under the governing sales tax law, and once the goods were exempt, the value of such goods could not form the basis for imposing penalty. The penalty order, to the extent it proceeded on the taxable value of HDPE fabrics, was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The penalty imposed in relation to HDPE fabrics was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty relatable to multifilament yarn required reconsideration and remand.

Analysis: Multifilament yarn was accepted as taxable, and the assessee also conceded liability in that regard. However, the quantum of penalty had to be reconsidered by the assessing authority in the light of the findings on taxability and the limited liability admitted in respect of the taxable goods.

Conclusion: The matter relating to penalty on multifilament yarn was remanded to the assessing authority for reconsideration.

Final Conclusion: The decision afforded partial relief by annulling the penalty founded on exempt goods while leaving the liability concerning taxable goods to be freshly determined on remand, with consequential release and adjustment of the security already furnished.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty cannot be levied on the value of goods that are exempt from tax, and where liability survives only for taxable goods, the penalty must be reassessed on that restricted basis.

Issues: (i) Whether rule 205 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995, including the Explanation inserted by notification, was invalid for permitting the Commissioner to authorise another officer and for giving retrospective effect. (ii) Whether the impugned provision was ultra vires the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994, or offended the doctrine of delegatus non potest delegare.

Issue (i): Whether rule 205 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995, including the Explanation inserted by notification, was invalid for permitting the Commissioner to authorise another officer and for giving retrospective effect.

Analysis: The parent Act expressly empowered the State Government to make rules with prospective or retrospective effect. The Explanation to rule 205 merely enabled the Commissioner to authorise another officer in writing for the limited purpose contemplated by the rule. The Court found no legal infirmity merely because the provision operated retrospectively, since no existing right was shown to have been taken away or any new liability imposed in an impermissible manner.

Conclusion: The challenge on the ground of retrospective operation failed, and the Explanation was held valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned provision was ultra vires the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994, or offended the doctrine of delegatus non potest delegare.

Analysis: The doctrine prevents re-delegation unless the statute permits it expressly or by necessary implication. Here, the statutory scheme allowed rule-making by the State and delegation by the Commissioner under prescribed limits. The authorised officer under rule 205 was treated as acting only for the restricted purpose of penalty proceedings relating to non-issue of cash memos or bills, and this was not found to conflict with the definition of appropriate assessing authority under rule 2(1)(c).

Conclusion: Rule 205 was held intra vires the Act and not hit by the doctrine of delegatus non potest delegare.

Final Conclusion: The legal challenge to the impugned rule failed in substance, and the question of law was answered against the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the parent statute authorises retrospective rule-making and the delegated power is used for a limited and controlled purpose, subordinate legislation permitting written authorisation by the Commissioner is valid and does not constitute impermissible sub-delegation.

Issues: (i) Whether the activities conducted in the water theme park constituted "sports and games" or amounted to "entertainment" taxable under the Bengal Amusements Act, 1922 prior to the 26 March 2002 amendment. (ii) Whether the departmental recognition of the complex as a sports complex created an estoppel against levy of tax.

Issue (i): Whether the activities conducted in the water theme park constituted "sports and games" or amounted to "entertainment" taxable under the Bengal Amusements Act, 1922 prior to the 26 March 2002 amendment.

Analysis: The expression "sports and games" was not defined in the Act, and its meaning had to be gathered in common parlance. The activities in the complex were examined as recreational rides, wave pools, splashing, sliding and similar attractions, which did not involve competition, skill, or contest between participants. The absence of traditional sporting character, physical exertion in a competitive sense, and the promotional description of the park as a place of thrill and excitement showed that the activities were amusement-oriented. The subsequent amendment taxing sports and games in amusement parks, theme parks and water games parks did not alter the position for the earlier period, because the pre-amendment activities were already found to fall within "entertainment" under section 2(4).

Conclusion: The activities were taxable entertainment, not exempt sports and games, and tax was payable for the period prior to 26 March 2002.

Issue (ii): Whether the departmental recognition of the complex as a sports complex created an estoppel against levy of tax.

Analysis: Estoppel under section 115 requires a representation by one party, reliance by the other, and action based on that belief. No representation by the taxing authority was shown that the complex would not be subjected to tax. Administrative permission or acceptance by another department for setting up the project could not bind the respondents in tax assessment proceedings. In the absence of the necessary ingredients of estoppel, the plea failed.

Conclusion: No estoppel arose against the respondents, and the levy of tax was not barred on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The application was held to be without merit, the impugned assessment was sustained, and the challenge to tax liability for the pre-amendment period failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where recreational activities in a park are, in common parlance, amusement-based and lack the essential features of competitive sport, they fall within "entertainment" for tax purposes; estoppel does not prevent a tax authority from enforcing the levy unless a clear representation and reliance are established.

Issues: (i) Whether section 14 of the West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Act, 1999, which bars refund of amounts paid under the settlement scheme, is unconstitutional as offending article 14 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of the excess amount deposited after settlement of the tax dispute.

Issue (i): Whether section 14 of the West Bengal Sales Tax (Settlement of Dispute) Act, 1999, which bars refund of amounts paid under the settlement scheme, is unconstitutional as offending article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The scheme was treated as an optional method for expeditious settlement of arrear tax disputes. Applying the settled test of reasonable classification under article 14, the reasoning accepted that the Legislature may classify persons if the classification is founded on intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus with the object of the statute. The dissenting view held that the bar on refund created an arbitrary distinction between dealers who had not made prior deposits and those who had deposited more than the payable amount, and that there was no reasonable basis for denying refund of the excess amount. The majority view held that the assessee voluntarily opted into the scheme with full knowledge of its terms, that the provision reflected the policy of the settlement mechanism, and that the constitutional challenge was not made out.

Conclusion: The majority upheld section 14 and rejected the constitutional challenge.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of the excess amount deposited after settlement of the tax dispute.

Analysis: The settlement authority determined the tax payable at an amount lower than the sum already deposited, leaving an excess balance. The majority held that, because the petitioner had opted for the scheme knowing that section 14 barred refund of amounts paid under section 6, the excess could not be reclaimed. The dissenting view treated the excess as refundable because the denial of refund was considered discriminatory and without reasonable justification.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to refund of the excess amount.

Final Conclusion: The settlement scheme was treated as binding on the applicant, and the statutory prohibition against refund was sustained, leaving no enforceable claim for return of the excess deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: A person who voluntarily opts into an optional statutory tax settlement scheme with full knowledge of its terms cannot later challenge the scheme's refund bar where the classification created by the scheme bears a rational relation to its object and is not shown to be arbitrary.

Issues: Whether the petition challenging the seizure and detention of goods could be entertained directly by the Tribunal without first pursuing the statutory remedy before the authority prescribed under the VAT law.

Analysis: The petition was entertained only to the limited extent of considering the statutory scheme. In view of the explanation to section 86 of the VAT Act, the Tribunal held that the petitioner was required to approach the authority above the officer who passed the impugned seizure order. The Tribunal further directed that, if the petitioner approached the competent statutory authority within the stipulated time, that authority should examine not only the penalty proceeding but also the legality of the seizure. Pending such proceedings, conditional release of the seized goods was ordered on furnishing security.

Conclusion: The petition was not decided on the merits of the seizure challenge and the petitioner was relegated to the alternative statutory remedy, with interim release of goods against security.

Issues: (i) Whether the seized books of accounts and other documents could be retained beyond the prescribed period without a valid sanction communicated to the dealer; (ii) Whether the attachment of the dealer's bank accounts was legally sustainable in the absence of a valid demand notice.

Issue (i): Whether the seized books of accounts and other documents could be retained beyond the prescribed period without a valid sanction communicated to the dealer.

Analysis: Section 66 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 permits seizure of books of accounts where evasion is suspected, but retention beyond the prescribed period requires written sanction from the competent authority and communication of the recorded reasons to the dealer. The governing decisions applied the rule that non-communication of the sanction and reasons within time vitiates continued retention and renders any subsequent retention unlawful. On the admitted facts, the sanction order for extended retention was not effectively communicated and the extended period had already expired.

Conclusion: The continued retention of the books of accounts and documents was illegal and without authority of law, and their release was warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the attachment of the dealer's bank accounts was legally sustainable in the absence of a valid demand notice.

Analysis: Attachment of a dealer's bank account requires a valid subsisting demand and cannot be sustained merely to secure a speculative recovery. The record showed that the attachment had been withdrawn in part, but the governing principle remained that such attachment is impermissible without a valid demand notice. The attachment therefore lacked legal foundation.

Conclusion: The bank account attachment was illegal and liable to be vacated.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded, with directions for immediate release of the seized books of accounts and vacation of the attachment orders if still operative.

Ratio Decidendi: Continued retention of seized books of accounts beyond the statutory period is invalid unless the sanction is lawfully obtained and its recorded reasons are communicated to the dealer within time; bank account attachment cannot be sustained without a valid demand.

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under section 68 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 could be sustained without a clear finding of deliberate intention to evade tax. (ii) Whether the seizure made for violation of section 68 read with rule 211 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 was legal and valid.

Issue (i): Whether penalty under section 68 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 could be sustained without a clear finding of deliberate intention to evade tax.

Analysis: Penalty under section 68 requires a clear and specific finding by the authority that the dealer had a deliberate intention to evade tax. The record did not disclose any such clear finding by either the seizing officer or the first revisional authority. As the question of mens rea was not expressly determined, the penalty issue could not be finally affirmed on the existing material.

Conclusion: The penalty could not be sustained on the present findings and the question was left to the second revisional authority for fresh consideration.

Issue (ii): Whether the seizure made for violation of section 68 read with rule 211 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 was legal and valid.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that there had been violation of section 68 read with rule 211. That statutory breach justified the initial action of seizure, independent of the unresolved penalty question.

Conclusion: The seizure was declared legal and valid.

Final Conclusion: The matter was remitted only on the question of penalty, while the legality of the seizure was affirmed and the goods were directed to be released on undertaking pending the revisional decision.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under section 68 can be sustained only on a clear finding of deliberate intention to evade tax, whereas a statutory violation of the way-bill requirement can still justify seizure.

Issues: Whether the seizure and penalty were valid where the transport documents carried by the petitioner were said to be defective for want of date on the invoice and challan number in the consignment note, and whether such defects established a violation of section 73 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 read with rule 214C of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995.

Analysis: Rule 214C governed despatch of goods from West Bengal to outside the State and, with section 73, required the transporter to carry the prescribed documents, including a bill or cash memo, a way-bill or similar particulars, and the relevant title document. The invoice was not dated, but a document cannot be treated as fake merely because it is undated unless it is shown not to belong to the party issuing it. The record also showed that challan number 267 was already present, and the revision order did not state that the challan was produced for the first time. On these facts, the Court found no established non-compliance with the transport requirements and no clear basis to infer an intention to evade tax from the omission of the date or the consignment-note defects. The contention of seizure under section 68 therefore did not survive.

Conclusion: The seizure and penalty were held invalid, and the orders passed under section 71 were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A seizure for alleged defects in transport documents cannot be sustained unless the authority establishes both material non-compliance with the prescribed document requirements and a clear intention to evade tax; an undated invoice or minor documentary omission, by itself, is insufficient.

Issues: Whether the ex parte reassessment order could be presumed to have been passed beyond the prescribed period of limitation because there was an unexplained delay in service of the assessment order and demand notice.

Analysis: The reassessment order was shown to have been passed on the last day of the limitation period, but the copy of the order and the demand notice were not served for more than three years. The respondents did not dispute the delay and offered no explanation for the late service. Applying the principle that unexplained and inordinate delay in communicating an order may justify a presumption that the order was not made on the date it purports to bear, the delay in service supported the inference that the reassessment was not genuinely completed within time.

Conclusion: The reassessment order was held to be beyond limitation and was liable to be quashed; the consequential revisional orders also failed.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the limitation challenge, resulting in quashing of the reassessment and all consequential revisional orders.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an order is served after an unexplained and inordinate delay, the authority may draw a presumption that the order was not actually made on the date it purports to bear and was therefore not passed within the prescribed limitation period.

Issues: Whether the assessment for the four quarters ending March 31, 1999 was liable to be reopened and the tax deposited refunded on the basis of an eligibility certificate for remission of tax granted later but given effect from an earlier date.

Analysis: The application for the eligibility certificate had been made within time, but the authorities took more than three years to issue it. The certificate was ultimately granted with effect from April 30, 1998, covering the relevant assessment period, though issued later on June 3, 2003. In these circumstances, the petitioner was not liable to pay tax for the relevant period, and the amount already deposited could not be retained. The assessment made under section 46A for the relevant quarters was therefore required to be reopened and reconsidered in the light of the eligibility certificate.

Conclusion: The assessment was directed to be reopened and heard afresh taking into account the eligibility certificate, and the tax deposited for the relevant period was treated as refundable.

Issues: (i) Whether the cancellation of registration certificate and the connected revisional orders were valid in the absence of proper service of notice and opportunity of hearing; (ii) Whether the ex parte assessment orders and rejection of the eligibility certificate could be sustained in law.

Issue (i): Whether the cancellation of registration certificate and the connected revisional orders were valid in the absence of proper service of notice and opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that notice of the next date of hearing had not been duly served in the manner required by rule 278 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995. Postal endorsements such as left or firm closed were not treated as sufficient service, and the authority had not shown that the prescribed modes of service, including affixture after exhausting other methods, were followed. The cancellation was also not supported by reliable evidence of discontinuance of business.

Conclusion: The cancellation of registration certificate and the connected revisional orders were illegal and were set aside. The matter was directed to be reheard after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Issue (ii): Whether the ex parte assessment orders and rejection of the eligibility certificate could be sustained in law.

Analysis: The Tribunal found no evidence that proper notice of hearing had been served before the ex parte assessments. It further held that the assessments were not based on material or reasoned application of mind, and therefore did not satisfy the standard of a valid best judgment assessment. The rejection of the eligibility certificate, being founded on the cancelled registration order, could not survive once that cancellation was set aside.

Conclusion: The ex parte assessment orders and the rejection of the eligibility certificate were unsustainable and were set aside, with directions for fresh assessment and reconsideration of the eligibility certificate after hearing the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal granted relief to the petitioner by invalidating the impugned cancellation, assessment, and rejection orders, and by directing fresh proceedings in accordance with law after due hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Administrative tax orders affecting rights must be preceded by valid statutory service of notice and a real opportunity of hearing, and an ex parte assessment must rest on material and reasoned application of mind to qualify as a lawful best judgment assessment.

Issues: Whether the seizure of the goods and the consequential penalty proceeding were legal and valid under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994.

Analysis: The ownership of the seized goods was not in dispute, but the identity of the goods and the circumstances in which they were stored were examined against the statutory obligation to inform the Revenue of a new or changed place of business. The Tribunal found that the goods were kept in another person's godown at Howrah without prior intimation to the Revenue, that the claimed tenancy arrangement lacked satisfactory proof of bona fides, and that the surrounding circumstances indicated an intention to keep the Revenue uninformed. On that basis, the Tribunal held that there was a clear contravention of the statutory provisions requiring disclosure and that the conditions for seizure and consequential penal action were attracted.

Conclusion: The seizure was held to be legal and valid, and the challenge to the penalty proceeding failed.

Issues: Whether the seizure of goods in transit and the consequential penalty were legally sustainable when the transporter carried the prescribed challan, cash memo and documents of title, but did not produce stock register and certain other documents demanded by the seizing officer.

Analysis: Section 73 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 and rule 214C of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 required the transporter or driver to carry the prescribed transport documents, including the relevant bill, cash memo, way-bill or challan, and document of title to the goods. The goods interception showed that the challan, cash memo and documents showing quantity, weight, value and description had been produced. The statutory provisions did not authorise seizure on the ground of non-production of stock register or other documents relating to transportation from the place of earlier purchase. Seizure under rule 214C(5) was permissible only where the required way-bill or challan was not produced at the time of transport.

Conclusion: The seizure and the penalty were unlawful and liable to be set aside in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the transporter produces the documents specifically mandated by the transit-control provisions, seizure cannot be justified on demands for documents not required by those provisions.

Issues: Whether the seizure of the goods and the consequential penalty orders were valid when the check-post documents bore an official seal but no signature, the required transit declaration under the rules was not furnished, and the goods were allowed to pass through the check-post.

Analysis: The decisive question was whether there was material to conclude that the petitioner intended to evade tax. The documents had been produced at the check-post, the official seal of the authority was affixed, and the vehicle was allowed to proceed. In those circumstances, the failure to insist upon the declaration contemplated by the rules and the absence of a signed endorsement were attributable to negligence or inadvertence on the part of the check-post authorities. Before drawing an adverse inference against the petitioner, the authority was required to explain how the vehicle had been permitted to pass through after verification. On these facts, the conclusion that the goods had been brought within West Bengal in violation of law and with intent to evade tax could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The seizure was held to be illegal and invalid, and the penalty and subsequent orders were quashed in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the goods and documents are produced before the check-post authority and the authority itself permits the vehicle to pass after affixing its seal, an adverse finding of tax evasion cannot be sustained unless the authority explains the circumstances showing deliberate violation by the transporter.

Issues: Whether cultifar, being a part of a mould board plough, was covered by Schedule I of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 and therefore exempt from tax, so that seizure for non-production of way-bill and the consequential penalty could not be sustained.

Analysis: The goods seized were admitted to be spare parts of a mould board plough. There was no finding that the articles were power-operated implements. The expression used in the relevant entry was held to cover a manually operated agricultural implement, and the exception relating to power-operated implements could not be stretched to treat spare parts of an agricultural implement as taxable merely by analogy. Since the statutory entry was found to be clear, the taxing authority was required to apply the strict letter of the law and could not enlarge the exception by implication. The orders of seizure, revision and penalty were found to rest on an incorrect understanding of the statutory entry and on no proper reasoning.

Conclusion: Cultifar, being part of a manually operated agricultural implement, was covered by Schedule I and not liable to tax. The seizure and the penalty under section 71 were unsustainable and were set aside.

Issues: (i) whether the withdrawal of sales tax exemption under section 39(4) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 was barred by promissory estoppel or on the footing that the exemption had become a vested right; (ii) whether the amendment offended article 14 by creating impermissible classes among eligibility certificate holders; (iii) whether rule 101A of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 was ultra vires section 39 of the Act; and (iv) whether the amendment violated articles 301 and 304(b) of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): whether the withdrawal of sales tax exemption under section 39(4) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 was barred by promissory estoppel or on the footing that the exemption had become a vested right.

Analysis: The exemption granted under the scheme was treated as a fiscal concession and not as an indefeasible right. The reasoning proceeded on the principle that promissory estoppel does not prevent the State from altering or withdrawing a tax concession in the exercise of legislative power, particularly where the change is justified by public interest. The amendment was held to be prospective and linked to revenue considerations and fiscal policy, and the beneficiaries' entitlement was described as defeasible rather than vested.

Conclusion: The plea of promissory estoppel failed and no vested right to continue the exemption for the full original period was recognized.

Issue (ii): whether the amendment offended article 14 by creating impermissible classes among eligibility certificate holders.

Analysis: The challenge under equality was rejected on the footing that the amended provision did not fix different rates of tax benefit among similarly situated dealers. The distinction drawn by the petitioners was held to be unreal because the ceiling of benefit remained uniform and the measure of benefit depended on the tax forgone under the statutory scheme, not on a constitutionally impermissible classification. The amendment was therefore treated as a policy change with a rational fiscal basis.

Conclusion: The amendment was not violative of article 14.

Issue (iii): whether rule 101A of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 was ultra vires section 39 of the Act.

Analysis: Section 104 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 was treated as a wide rule-making provision authorising rules necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act and to prescribe matters required by the Act to be prescribed. On that basis, rule 101A was held to be within the delegated power. The reliance placed on a different statutory scheme was distinguished because the rule-making language there was narrower and did not confer equivalent authority.

Conclusion: Rule 101A was not ultra vires section 39.

Issue (iv): whether the amendment violated articles 301 and 304(b) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The court treated the impugned measure as withdrawal of a tax concession and not as a direct or immediate restriction on trade, commerce or intercourse. The burden alleged by the petitioners was considered only incidental to the fiscal amendment. Since the scheme was withdrawn in public interest and the provision did not amount to a direct impediment to movement of goods or business, the constitutional challenge under the freedom of trade clauses was rejected.

Conclusion: The amendment did not violate articles 301 or 304(b) of the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional and statutory challenges to the curtailment of sales tax exemption failed, and the amendment was upheld as a valid prospective fiscal measure in public interest.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory tax exemption is a revocable fiscal concession, and its prospective withdrawal in public interest does not attract promissory estoppel, create a vested right, or amount to unconstitutional discrimination or an impermissible restraint on trade.

Issues: Whether liability to pay tax under section 6D of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 could be fixed independently of assessment proceedings, and whether the earlier fixation of liability under section 4(2) barred or displaced such determination.

Analysis: The assessment related to a period prior to the insertion of section 6D(1a), which from 1 February 1993 empowered the Commissioner, after enquiry and hearing, to fix the date from which liability would arise. For the period in question, section 4(2) operated as the charging provision and the scheme of the Act required liability to be worked out in assessment proceedings under section 11(2). Section 6D was not treated as a self-contained provision authorising independent fixation of liability outside assessment. The prior authorities were followed to hold that liability may arise under the charging section, but its determination and enforcement must be through assessment machinery.

Conclusion: The independent order fixing liability under section 6D without assessment proceedings was without jurisdiction and unsustainable. The challenge succeeded and the impugned orders were set aside.