Compounding facility for liquor turnover tax upheld where no express three-year business condition is prescribed.

The compounding facility for turnover tax on liquor sales was interpreted as available without an express statutory requirement that the dealer must have completed three years' continuous business before the relevant year. The Tribunal's view that the eligibility condition was not mandatory was treated as a plausible construction of the provision, and that interpretation was not liable to revisionary interference. On that basis, the dealer remained entitled to the compounding facility and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dealer was entitled to the compounding facility for payment of turnover tax on liquor sales under the relevant provision, and whether prior completion of three years' continuous business was a mandatory condition for availing that facility.

Analysis: The provision granting compounding facility was construed as not containing any express requirement that the applicant must have completed three years' continuous business before the year for which compounding is sought. The interpretation adopted by the Tribunal treated the eligibility condition as not mandatory in the manner contended by the Revenue. Since that view was a possible one on the language of the provision, interference was not warranted.

Conclusion: The dealer was held entitled to the compounding facility, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory provision does not expressly prescribe prior completion of three years' continuous business as a mandatory condition for compounding, a plausible interpretation in favour of eligibility cannot be interfered with in revision.

---