Renewal of eligibility certificate cannot be refused on extraneous grounds; consequential denial of declaration forms also falls.

Renewal of an eligibility certificate under rule 3(66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, was held unsustainable because the refusal rested on grounds outside those permitted by the rule. The Court did not examine the truth of the underlying allegations, focusing instead on the legality of the basis for rejection. The consequential refusal to issue declaration forms also failed because it depended entirely on the invalid renewal order. Both impugned orders were set aside, and the applications were directed to be reconsidered by the competent authority in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the rejection of renewal of the eligibility certificate under rule 3(66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, on grounds extraneous to the rule, was liable to be quashed. (ii) Whether the consequential order refusing issue of declaration forms, based on the rejection order, was liable to be quashed and the matter reconsidered.

Issue (i): Whether the rejection of renewal of the eligibility certificate under rule 3(66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, on grounds extraneous to the rule, was liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The grounds recorded in the rejection order did not fall within the permissible grounds for refusing renewal under sub-rule (ii) of rule 3(66). The impugned order proceeded on matters not authorised by the rule, and the respondents were unable to show that those grounds could validly sustain rejection. The validity or truth of the underlying allegations was not gone into, since the attack was confined to the legality of the basis of rejection.

Conclusion: The rejection of renewal of the eligibility certificate was unsustainable and was quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the consequential order refusing issue of declaration forms, based on the rejection order, was liable to be quashed and the matter reconsidered.

Analysis: The order refusing declaration forms was expressly founded on the earlier rejection of renewal of the eligibility certificate. Once the foundational order was found unsustainable, the consequential order also could not stand. The appropriate course was fresh consideration of both applications by the competent authority in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The consequential order was quashed and the applications were directed to be reconsidered by the appropriate authority.

Final Conclusion: Relief was granted to the assessee by setting aside both impugned orders and directing fresh adjudication of the pending applications in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An administrative tax order is liable to be quashed where it rests on grounds outside the scope of the governing rule, and any consequential order founded on such invalid order cannot survive.

---