Strict construction of tax exemptions upheld as turnover tax relief and retrospective deletion were sustained against challenge.

Rule 3(66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 was held not to exempt dealers from turnover tax under section 6B of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, because the rule applied to deductions from gross turnover under other charging provisions and could not be expanded to cover a later, separate levy. Exemption provisions were required to be strictly construed, so the claimed deduction was unavailable. The retrospective deletion of section 6B(2)(e) by the West Bengal Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 was also upheld, as the amendment was not found confiscatory, discriminatory, or violative of Articles 14, 301 or 304, and no enforceable promise supported promissory estoppel against the statute.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether rule 3(66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 granted exemption from turnover tax under section 6B of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941. (ii) Whether the retrospective deletion of section 6B(2)(e) by section 2(4)(B)(ii) of the West Bengal Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 was unconstitutional or barred by promissory estoppel.

Issue (i): Whether rule 3(66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 granted exemption from turnover tax under section 6B of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941.

Analysis: Rule 3(66) referred to dealers liable to pay tax under sections 4 and 8(3) and permitted deduction of specified sales from gross turnover. Turnover tax under section 6B was a separate levy introduced later, and the rule did not expressly cover it. Exemption provisions are to be construed strictly, and the word "tax" in the rule could not be expanded to include turnover tax so as to defeat the scheme of the Act.

Conclusion: The rule did not confer exemption from turnover tax.

Issue (ii): Whether the retrospective deletion of section 6B(2)(e) by section 2(4)(B)(ii) of the West Bengal Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 was unconstitutional or barred by promissory estoppel.

Analysis: A State Legislature may impose reasonable restrictions in public interest under Article 304(b), and a fiscal statute may be amended retrospectively if the amendment is not confiscatory or discriminatory. The Court found no violation of Articles 14, 301 or 304, and held that no enforceable promise had been shown in relation to turnover tax exemption. Promissory estoppel could not override the statute, and the assessee had no vested right to continue the deleted deduction.

Conclusion: The retrospective deletion was valid and the constitutional and promissory estoppel challenges failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitioner had no enforceable entitlement to exemption from turnover tax, and the State law withdrawing the deduction retrospectively was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption provisions in a fiscal statute must be strictly construed, and a retrospective amendment withdrawing a tax benefit is valid unless it is confiscatory, discriminatory, or otherwise constitutionally infirm; promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to defeat the statute.

---