Tax holiday eligibility for a new S.S.I. unit depends on statutory conditions, not a different trade name or separate bakery activity.

Eligibility for a tax holiday under section 39 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 depended on satisfaction of the conditions in rules 99 and 100 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 for a newly set up S.S.I. unit. The ice-cream unit was separately registered, had a pollution certificate, and had obtained the relevant declaration in Form C for the machinery used for that unit; the existence of a separate bakery business did not by itself disqualify the new unit. No suppression of material facts was found in relation to the new unit's certificates, and the statutory definition of dealer was treated as sufficient without importing the broader definition of person under the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899. On that basis, rejection of the eligibility certificate was described as unsustainable and reconsideration was indicated if the remaining legal conditions were met.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to an eligibility certificate for tax holiday under section 39 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 notwithstanding the use of a different trade name for the new unit and whether the rejection of the application was legally sustainable.

Analysis: The entitlement under section 39 depended on compliance with the conditions in rules 99 and 100 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995, including the requirements for a newly set up S.S.I. unit as explained in rule 98. The record showed that the ice-cream unit was separately registered as an S.S.I. unit, had a pollution certificate, and the relevant declaration in form C had been obtained for the machinery used for that unit. The fact that the petitioner also carried on a bakery business did not disqualify the new ice-cream unit from consideration for tax holiday, and there was no suppression of material facts in obtaining the certificates for the new unit. The definition of dealer under section 2(10) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 was held to be sufficient, and the broader definition of person under the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899 could not be applied so as to make the statutory scheme redundant.

Conclusion: The rejection of the eligibility certificate was unsustainable, and the application was required to be reconsidered for grant of the certificate if the other legal conditions were satisfied.

---