Tax holiday eligibility depends on the prescribed application deadline; promissory estoppel fails without proof of reliance and changed position.

A claim for eligibility certificate and tax exemption under the Bengal Sales Tax Rules had to comply with the prescribed application time-limit under rule 3(66); an application made long after the relevant date was treated as falling under rule 3(66a), not rule 3(66). The record showed that the certificate was granted under rule 3(66a), and the broader exemption claim was rejected. The doctrine of promissory estoppel also required proof of reliance and alteration of position on the basis of a promise, which was absent here. In the absence of any factual foundation for such reliance, the plea failed and the disallowance of the wider tax holiday claim was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant was entitled to an eligibility certificate and tax exemption under rule 3(66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, instead of being governed by rule 3(66a); and (ii) whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel could be invoked to claim a longer period of tax holiday.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant was entitled to an eligibility certificate and tax exemption under rule 3(66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, instead of being governed by rule 3(66a).

Analysis: The relevant scheme required a dealer claiming eligibility under rule 3(66) to apply on or before 14 April 1983, while a registered dealer could apply on or after 1 April 1983 only within the framework of that rule. The application here was made on 11 May 1984, long after the prescribed date and even beyond a reasonable period from the date when liability to tax arose. The form used and the surrounding record also showed that the certificate had in fact been granted under rule 3(66a), and the challenge that it was under rule 3(66) was not accepted.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to relief under rule 3(66), and the case was properly treated as falling under rule 3(66a).

Issue (ii): Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel could be invoked to claim a longer period of tax holiday.

Analysis: Promissory estoppel required proof that the applicant acted in reliance on a promise and altered its position on that basis. No such factual foundation was shown. The delay in applying for the certificate also negatived any claim of bona fides, and no material was placed to show detrimental alteration of position because of any representation. The statutory nature of the scheme also weighed against the plea.

Conclusion: The plea of promissory estoppel failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order disallowing the broader exemption claim was sustained, and the application was dismissed without costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim to tax exemption under a statutory holiday scheme must comply with the prescribed application time-limit, and promissory estoppel cannot be invoked without proof of reliance and alteration of position.

---