1999 (11) TMI 851

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er for extension of the validity of the eligibility certificate (E.C.) for a further period of 4 years has been rejected. They also challenge the two revisional orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (respondent No. 2) and the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (respondent No. 1) affirming the said order of the respondent No. 3. The case of the company is that it is registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and that at its factory situated at Hatasuria, in the district of Bankura, it manufactures salt glazed stoneware pipe and pipe fittings. The company was granted eligibility certificate for this industrial unit under section 10G of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (in short, "t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sion which has no application to the company. 3.. At the time of hearing on the question of admission of the application Mr. Sharodindu Biswas, learned advocate for the company, has contended that if a manufacturer-dealer is still in the process of enjoying any tax benefit for a statutory period, and if the statutory provision, whereunder such benefit is available, undergoes an amendment whereby the period is extended, the dealer is entitled to avail of the benefit under the amended provision. To derive support to his contentions he relies on the decision in the case of Seimens India Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [1986] 62 STC 40 (Bom). But the ratio of this decision has no bearing with the issue as is before us. It would suffice to quote....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... apply and the holder of such right can seek the remedy to enforce his right within such enlarged period. Mr. Biswas has referred to some other reported decisions which are related to amendment of procedural law or to departmental circular which attempted to curtail the right available under the relevant statute. Therefore, these decisions have little relevance to the dispute before us. 5.. In the case before us the dispute is not related to procedural law but to one which creates a substantive right. Under section 10G of the 1941 Act and rule 48G of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, as they stood prior to April 15, 1993, a manufacturer-dealer, subject to fulfilment of the statutory conditions, could become eligible for the benefit of ta....