- (1.) The undisputed facts and circumstances of the case are as follows: In or about 1989 a reference was made to the BIFR under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. By an order dated April 1, 1991 a rehabilitation scheme was sanctioned. On the basis of the prayer of the company the Board passed an order dated March 13, 1996 holding that the company had ceased to be a sick industrial company. Mr. Khaitan, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner-company submitted that the company had really ceased to be sick in February 1995 and on that basis the prayer was made but the consequent order was passed by the BIFR on March 13, 1996. Prior to March 13, 1996 the company had been enjoying the benefit of deferment of payment of tax under the old Act. After the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 was introduced and the remission was made available to the jute industry under section 43 thereof, the petitioner-company applied and obtained such benefit pursuant to an order dated August 31, 2001 for the period of five years commencing from July 30, 1995.
(2.) The company filed a revision petition against the order dated 31st August, 2001 which did not succeed. The company as such applied for review which was dismissed on the merits. The company thereafter approached the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal rejected the contention of the company by its judgment and order dated June 11, 2010 which is now under challenge before us by the company.
(3.) Mr. Khaitan submitted that the authorities made a mistake in calculating the gross value of fixed capital assets for the purpose of making available the benefit of remission under section 43 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. In support of his aforesaid submission he drew our attention to sub-section (3) of section 43 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act and contended that the Legislature by a fiction has provided for treating a revived sick industrial unit as a newly set up industrial unit.;