- (1.) IN this revisional application the only short point that has been raised on behalf of the applicant is whether renewal of the eligibility certificate for the period July 1982 to June 1983 was rightly rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and whether the order of the Additional Commissioner confirming that order substantially is sustainable.
(2.) ADMITTED facts are : the applicant is a small-scale industrial unit and was granted eligibility certificate for the period January 24, 1981 to June 30, 1981. Thereafter the eligibility certificate was renewed for the year ended June 30, 1982. The applicant again applied for renewal on March 24, 1983 for another year ended June 30, 1983. This prayer for renewal for the period ending June, 1983 was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner by his order dated November 9, 1984. The applicant thereupon moved a revisional application before the Additional Commissioner who passed order dated May 22, 1989, who also rejected the prayer for renewal, but on somewhat different considerations. Thereupon the applicant has preferred the present application. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned State Representative. The scope of the present dispute is very limited. The Assistant Commissioner in disposing of the application for renewal took three grounds, namely, that he found the cash book written up to June 30, 1984 that there were no vouchers showing payment of Rs. 35. 50 made in cash for purchase of grease and mobil and that there were similarly no vouchers showing payment of Rs. 100 on August 30, 1983 to Diamond Engineering Works for new soap cases. The dealer failed to produce money receipt against these payments. The Assistant Commissioner further found that the applicant was running at a loss in the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 and that the dealer put stress on production of domestic goods which proved detrimental to the business. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner concluded that the stress on production of domestic goods had adversely affected the economic viability of the newly set up industry. On these three counts the Assistant Commissioner rejected the prayer for renewal.
(3.) THE learned Additional Commissioner in disposing of the revisional application rightly observed that the first two grounds were minor in nature and not worthy of consideration. But he rejected the prayer on the following observations : " It is interesting to note that from 1986-87 onwards there was no manufacturing activity whatsoever by the industry. The activity of the petitioner leads one to the inevitable conclusion that just after the tax exemption period ending in 1985-86, they have stopped manufacturing and selling their own product. Provision contained under rule 3 (66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, gives incentive to the newly set up industries and the purpose of such provision was to give concession to new industries by way of tax holiday for some time so that the industries could go on and ultimately could establish in the market and pay revenue to the Government in the long run. The object of the said provision was that the eligibility certificate should not be renewed if anything is done which adversely affects the economic viability of the newly set up industries. In the instant case the industry ran at a loss for four consecutive years from 1981-82 to 1984-85 and thereafter almost during the last three years the unit has ceased to manufacture and sell any product of its own. Thus the purpose of the whole scheme behind the provision of the relevant rule is frustrated and Government is not getting any revenue from the industry during the period when it ought to have received the same. In fact, the petitioner cannot enjoy the benefit unilaterally without having any corresponding liability to pay tax in the subsequent periods. " On this consideration the learned Additional Commissioner confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. ;