Statutory definition of "year" governs turnover tax rate computation; marginal relief under the proviso must be applied when conditions are met.

Section 6B(3)(a) was construed by applying the statutory definition of "year" in section 2(j), so the rate of turnover tax had to be determined on the dealer's entire accounting year and not merely the post-introduction period from 1 April 1979. The contention for a narrower period was rejected. The proviso to section 6B(3) was separately held to confer marginal relief where its conditions were satisfied, and the denial of that relief was found erroneous. The assessment and appellate and revisional orders were modified only to the extent necessary to grant the statutory marginal relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, for determining the rate of turnover tax under section 6B(3)(a), the word "year" meant only the period for which turnover tax became leviable or the dealer's entire accounting year; (ii) whether the applicants were entitled to marginal relief under the proviso to section 6B(3).

Issue (i): Whether, for determining the rate of turnover tax under section 6B(3)(a), the word "year" meant only the period for which turnover tax became leviable or the dealer's entire accounting year.

Analysis: The expression "year" was already defined in section 2(j) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 as the dealer's accounting year. Section 6B(3) fixed the rate of tax by reference to the aggregate turnover during the year in respect of which, or part of which, turnover tax was levied. The reference to "part" did not qualify the defined expression "year". On that construction, the aggregate turnover for the whole accounting year had to be taken into account, even though turnover tax was introduced with effect from 1 April 1979.

Conclusion: The contention that only the turnover for the post-1 April 1979 period could be considered was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicants were entitled to marginal relief under the proviso to section 6B(3).

Analysis: The State representative conceded that marginal relief under the proviso should have been available. The proviso was interpreted as granting relief where the statutory conditions were satisfied, and the authorities below erred in denying that relief to the applicants.

Conclusion: The applicants were held entitled to marginal relief under the proviso to section 6B(3).

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only to the limited extent of securing the statutory marginal relief, while the interpretation of "year" for rate purposes was upheld against the applicants. The assessment and appellate and revisional orders were modified to that limited extent.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute defines "year", that definition governs the computation under the charging provision unless the provision clearly indicates a different meaning, and a proviso conferring marginal relief must be given full effect when its conditions are met.

---