1989 (6) TMI 276 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Court grants renewal of E.C. under Section 8, WB Taxation Tribunal Act '87, emphasizing support for small-scale industries.

The court allowed the application under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, without costs. It directed the Assistant Commissioner to ... - Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of rule 3(66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941.2. Inclusion of the cost of generator and moulds in the investment limit under rule 3(66).3. Delay in the disposal of applications for renewal of the eligibility certificate (E.C.).4. Competence of the revisional authority to interpret statutory provisions.5. Applicability of res judicata to the present case.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of rule 3(66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941:The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of rule 3(66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941. The rule grants certain 'benefits' to 'a newly set up small-scale industry' with an investment limit initially set at Rs. 20 lakhs, later raised to Rs. 35 lakhs. The court emphasized that the limit of investment prescribed in explanation (i) of rule 3(66)(i) must be considered afresh for renewal every year. The court also held that the cost of generator and moulds should be excluded from the cost of plant and machinery for the purpose of rule 3(66).2. Inclusion of the cost of generator and moulds in the investment limit under rule 3(66):The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes included the cost of generator and moulds in the investment limit, which led to the rejection of the E.C. for certain periods. The court, however, disagreed with this inclusion, citing guidelines from the Government of India and the practice of the Directorate of Cottage and Small-scale Industries of the Government of West Bengal. The court held that the cost of generator and moulds should be excluded from the computation of the investment limit, aligning with the broader scheme of offering incentives for setting up small-scale industrial units.3. Delay in the disposal of applications for renewal of the eligibility certificate (E.C.):The applicant argued that the delayed rejection of the renewal applications caused undue hardship, as no sales tax was realized for the period from April 1, 1984, to August 14, 1985. The court acknowledged the delay but noted that the applicant also delayed filing the renewal applications. Consequently, the court did not set aside the rejection order solely on the ground of delay but directed the Assistant Commissioner to dispose of the pending application for the period from April 1, 1985, to August 14, 1985, promptly.4. Competence of the revisional authority to interpret statutory provisions:The applicant contended that the revisional authority, being a creature of statute, was incompetent to interpret rule 3(66). The court rejected this argument, stating that the revisional authority is required to interpret any provision of law necessary for deciding the dispute before it. The court held that the revisional authority is competent to interpret rule 3(66) and that the present application is maintainable under section 8(3)(c) of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, as it involves the interpretation of a statutory rule.5. Applicability of res judicata to the present case:The applicant argued that the issue of including the cost of generator and moulds had already been decided or deemed to have been decided by a previous High Court order, invoking the principle of constructive res judicata. The court, however, found that the earlier order did not address the computation of the investment limit and was based solely on the ground of delay. Therefore, the court held that the earlier order did not operate as res judicata in the present case.Conclusion:The court allowed the application under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, without costs. It directed the Assistant Commissioner to grant renewal of the E.C. for the period from April 1, 1984, to March 31, 1985, and to dispose of the application for the period from April 1, 1985, to August 14, 1985, within four weeks, considering the court's findings and observations. The judgment emphasized a liberal and practical interpretation of rule 3(66) to support small-scale industries.