- (1.) By this application the judgment and order of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal dated 14th January, 2005 has been impugned. The learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment and order has disposed of a batch of applications numbering 141. In those batch of matters it appears that the vires of the amendment of Section 39 made by inserting sub-section 4 along with explanation was challenged. The challenge before the learned Tribunal failed.
(2.) The short facts culminating before this Court are as follows:- The petitioner is a manufacturer of spices. At the material point of time the petitioner was a newly set up small scale industrial unit and its first sale from such unit was made on 10th June, 2002. The industrial unit of the petitioner is situated in North 24 Parganas within the area where the benefit of tax holiday for seven years had been allowed under Section 39 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. The petitioner claims that it is entitled to this benefit of tax holiday for a period of 7 years prior to amendment. Accordingly, the petitioner was granted eligibility certificate on and from 17th July, 2002. The eligibility certificate was issued to the petitioner on 30th of May, 2003 mentioning the validity period from 10th June, 2002 to 9th June, 2009. Before the certificate was issued to the petitioner, as aforesaid, Section 30 with insertion of sub-section 4, was amended -with effect from 1st April, 2003. According to proviso to the said sub-section, a newly set up small scale industrial unit is entitled to enjoy tax holiday to the maximum of 200 per cent of the gross value of the fixed asset. The gross value of fixed asset was defined in explanation to subsection 4 of Section 39. Hence, applying the aforesaid amended law and endorsement was subject to 200 per cent of GVFCA for the period from 10th June, 2002 to 9th June, 2009. It is submitted that learned Tribunal was in error not upholding the challenge to the said sub-section on the ground of constitutional invalidity.
(3.) Smt . Chandrima Bhattachaiya, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the application was made the unamended Section 39 was in operation and while granting the certificate the amended law cannot be pressed into operation. Such an action aiming at to give retrospective effect to the amended law is unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.;