TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (10) TMI 714
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ificate (EC) was granted under section 41 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 (1994 Act) for remission of tax. 2.. The facts are mostly undisputed. The applicant has been manufacturing for sale insoles for footwear, micro cellular, EVA sheets and hawai chappals at its newly set up industrial unit located at 81/1G, Topsia Road, Calcutta-700039, which is within the areas under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. It applied for provisional certificate (PC) on 30th September, 1997, and the PC was granted under rule 27 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 (1995 Rules) on 19th December, 1997 for the period from the date of issue to 18th December, 1998. Rule 27 lays down that PC is to be granted on proof, to the satisfaction of the appropr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en granted "inadvertently". So, he issued notice in form 55 on that date to the applicant regarding his proposal to invalidate the EC ab initio, fixing 3rd June, 1999 for hearing (vide copies of orders furnished by the applicant at the time of hearing). The notice was served, but the applicant did not appear on 3rd June. On that date the impugned order was passed, recalling the order dated 5th February by which EC was granted, cancelling it, and invalidating the EC ab initio. Though it was alleged in ground No. V that no notice of the hearing on 3rd June was served, that was not pressed or urged at the hearing before us. On the other hand, it is seen from the order dated 3rd June, furnished by the applicant, that respondent No. 1 recorded t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aw. In our opinion, respondent No. 1 could not exercise the power of suo motu revision under section 80, but could exercise the power of suo motu review under section 83. Mr. Chakraborty appearing for the applicant conceded that it was really an order of review, and he insisted on a decision from us on that basis. Respondent No. 1 used the expression "suo motu review" at the beginning of the order. For all these reasons we are examining the order of 3rd June, 1999 as an order of review. According to us, while actually reviewing the order of 5th February, 1999, respondent No. 1 mentioned by mistake section 80 in place of section 83, and mentioned by mistake the word "revise" at some places in place of the word "review". 5.. There is unanimi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....99 was a mere formal declaration. Hence, whatever effect (prospective or retrospective) the EC purported to confer was non est. The fact, even if true, that the applicant had acted upon it, or had changed its position according to it, or would suffer loss on account of the order of review, is wholly immaterial in such a situation. 6.. True, rule 135 permits discontinuation of the benefit of remission of tax ordinarily with effect from the date of contravention of the provisions of 1994 Act and 1995 Rules (see proviso to rule 135) and not for any period prior to the date of contravention. In this connection, two points are noteworthy. The date of cancellation of EC must naturally be subsequent to the date of contravention. So, retrospective....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt by invoking promissory estoppel as such. However, it may be noted that principles of promissory estoppel had no application to these facts. It was held in Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh 1999 (4) Supreme 270 that principles of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to protect illegal acts which are against law. 8.. According to Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 1186, a "review" is: "to re-examine judicially or administratively. A reconsideration; second view or examination; revision; consideration for purposes of correction...." When a power of review is exercised, the original order under review can be modified, rectified or substituted by a completely opposite order. When that is done, the original order becom....