TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (4) TMI 301
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of alloy steel castings including stainless steel ingots and mild steel ingots for sale. The unit started production in January, 1986 and the first date of sale of manufactured product was made on March 14, 1986. Application for eligibility certificate was made under rule 3(66). It was granted on December 10, 1986 with effect from March 14, 1986 up to March 13, 1987 and was renewed for subsequent periods from March 14, 1987 to March 13, 1988 and from March 14, 1988 to March 13, 1989. Applicant No. 1 obtained registration certificate as a dealer under the 1941 Act and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 on July 30, 1986. On February 7, 1991 the respondent No. 2, Assistant Commissioner, issued a notice asking the applicant No. 1 to show cause why the eligibility certificate and the renewals thereof should not be rejected on the ground that investment on plant and machinery had exceeded the prescribed limit at the relevant time. Although the notice was resisted, the respondent No. 2 by an order dated July 30, 1991 declared the eligibility certificate and the renewals to be invalid. A revision was preferred before the Additional Commissioner, respondent No. 3, who maintained the order of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffidavits-in-reply have been filed by the applicants. 5.. Mr. M.L. Bhattacharjee, learned advocate for the applicants, contended that the provision of clause (iii) of rule 3(66) of the 1941 Rules is ultra vires article 14 of the Constitution of India for a number of reasons. He argued that the expression "good and sufficient reasons" do not connote sufficient and specified safeguards against arbitrary use of this power of declaring eligibility certificate invalid. He stated that no time-limit was also prescribed. Mr. T.N. De, learned State Representative, argued that the provision is not arbitrary and not violative of article 14. As regards absence of time-limit for exercise of power, he contended that when no time-limit has been prescribed, the power should be exercised within a reasonable time. Mr. Bhattacharjee further contended that in the present case cancellation of eligibility certificate and renewals after a period of four years was unreasonable and the Assistant Commissioner exercised the power merely on the basis of a difference of opinion with his predecessors-in-office who had taken a different view on the same set of facts. According to Mr. Bhattacharjee, there was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re this is the case of a mere change of opinion and there was no good or sufficient reason. Mr. T.N. De, learned State Representative, drew our attention to the impugned orders dated July 30, 1991 in RN-187 and dated July 25, 1991 in RN-188 passed by the new Assistant Commissioner and contended that it appears from the said orders that at the time of hearing of the applications for eligibility certificate, the applicants submitted lists of plant and machinery in which only those two items (furnace and high frequency changer) were shown and the then Assistant Commissioners granted eligibility certificate and renewals on that basis. Mr. Bhattacharjee appearing for the applicants opposed this submission by saying that nothing was suppressed and rather all papers, records and books of account and the equipments themselves at the factories had been inspected. According to him, the applicants were entitled to claim that only those two items of equipment should be treated as plant and machinery. Now, it is a question of fact, whether actually records and books of account had been inspected at the relevant time and whether the other items of equipment were found entered therein. It is also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he guidelines issued by the Government of India in connection with the definition of small-scale industry for the guidance of the State Governments. The Government of India circular stated that the cost of extra transformers, etc., which have to be installed as per regulations of State Electricity Boards would be excluded. In the present cases the applicants have produced a letter from the West Bengal State Electricity Board to the effect that the units were asked to instal their own step-down transformers and necessary equipments for utilisation of power from 33 KV line supplied by West Bengal State Electricity Board. In other words, the applicants have shown at the time of hearing that they had to instal all those transformers to obtain current for sundry use and also current of 850 volts and 440 volts or the like for utilisation in the manufacturing unit, because the West Bengal State Electricity Board did not supply the same and asked the units to have their own equipments. That being the position, following the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Metcoke India Private Ltd. [1999] 116 STC 289 (supra); [1991] 24 STA 305 we hold that the value of all the transformers should....