Vested tax remission cannot be withdrawn by later amendment; writ jurisdiction remained available for Central Sales Tax relief.

The writ petition was maintainable before the High Court because the relief sought concerned entitlement under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which was not a scheduled Act under the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987; the Tribunal therefore lacked jurisdiction and the issue was decided for the assessee. The later amendment to the definition of manufacture by Notification No. 2425 F.T. could not take away a tax remission already granted under Notification No. 1324 F.T., because the industrial unit had already been established, registered, and found eligible under the earlier regime. The later notification applied only to units set up after its commencement, so the earlier remission remained available.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable before the High Court in view of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987. (ii) Whether the amended definition of manufacture introduced by Notification No. 2425 F.T. dated August 12, 1999 could deprive the petitioner of the tax remission already available under Notification No. 1324 F.T. dated April 28, 1995.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable before the High Court in view of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987.

Analysis: The dispute concerned entitlement to benefit under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was not a scheduled Act under the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987. The relief claimed was not under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 but under the Central enactment, and therefore the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to decide whether the benefit under the Central Sales Tax Act remained available after the amendment to the State rules.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable before the High Court, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the amended definition of manufacture introduced by Notification No. 2425 F.T. dated August 12, 1999 could deprive the petitioner of the tax remission already available under Notification No. 1324 F.T. dated April 28, 1995.

Analysis: The petitioner had already established the industrial unit, obtained registration, and been granted eligibility for remission on the basis of the existing regime. The legal effect of the later amendment was considered in light of the settled principle that an incentive already granted to induce establishment of an industrial unit cannot be withdrawn by a subsequent amendment so as to defeat the existing benefit. The amendment would govern units set up after its commencement, but not the petitioner's earlier-acquired benefit.

Conclusion: The later notification did not apply to the petitioner, and the petitioner remained entitled to remission of tax under the earlier notification.

Final Conclusion: The impugned refusal to renew eligibility for the period after September 1, 1999 was unsustainable, and the petitioner's entitlement to the earlier tax remission was preserved.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax incentive or remission already granted on the basis of an existing statutory regime cannot be curtailed by a subsequent amendment so as to take away the vested benefit of an industrial unit already established and recognised under the earlier regime.

---