JUDGMENT SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, J. - The petitioner is a manufacturer of coconut oil and oil-cakes. It is registered under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, with effect from May 28, 1983. The petitioner applied for an eligibility certificate under rule 3(66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941. The Assistant Commissioner, Asansol Circle, by his order dated October 25, 1983, rejected the application on a number of grounds. The Assistant Commissioner held that production of coconut oil commenced only on March 24, 1983, whereas the statutory requirement was that production must start between March 31, 1978 and March 14, 1983. The Assistant Commissioner further held that the petitioner's application for grant of an eligibility certificate was made on June 8, 1983 whereas the last date for submission of such application was April 14, 1983. Lastly, the Assistant Commissioner held that the assessee maintained two sets of sale memos, one for coconut oil and the other for oil-cakes with identical serial numbers. The statute does not require separate serials to be kept for separate commodities. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the application for grant of an eligibility certificate on the aforesaid grounds. The assessee made a revision petition to the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, who held that the trial production of the petitioner's unit started on March 13, 1983, which was within the statutory period of March 31, 1978 to March 14, 1983. The Additional Commissioner, however, held that the petitioner's application on June 8, 1983 for issue of certificate of eligibility under rule 3(66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, could not be entertained. The last date for filing the application under rule 3(66) had been fixed on April 14, 1983. The Additional Commissioner, however, noted that only a registered dealer could apply for a certificate of eligibility on or after April 1, 1983. The Additional Commissioner further noted that the petitioner was registered on June 6, 1983 with effect from May 28, 1983 and it filed application for the certificate of eligibility on June 8, 1983. The object of rule 3(66) is to encourage setting up of new small-scale industries. The conditions under which the tax relief can be claimed are set out in rule 3(66). There is no dispute that the petitioner has set up a small-scale industrial unit which is registered with the Cottage and Small Scale Industries Department of the Government of West Bengal. The conditions under which the tax relief can be claimed are set out in rule 3(66). There is no dispute that the petitioner has set up a small-scale industrial unit which is registered with the Cottage and Small Scale Industries Department of the Government of West Bengal. It has been found by the Additional Commissioner that the production started on March 13, 1983 which falls within the statutory period of March 31, 1978 to March 14, 1983. A dispute, however, was raised whether the petitioner issues serially numbered cash/credit memos for sales of goods manufactured in such industries. Although the Assistant Commissioner pointed out that the petitioner keeps two separate serially numbered cash/credit memos for coconut oil and oil-cakes, the Additional Commissioner has not rejected the application for the petitioner that ground. Moreover, if the petitioner keeps serially numbered cash/credit memos for sale of each item of goods manufactured in such industry, prima facie, it does not appear that the petitioner has committed any wrong. The requirement of the section is to issue serially numbered cash/credit memos for sales of goods manufactured in the new industry. The section in terms does not require the petitioner to keep only one set of serially numbered cash/credit memos for all the goods manufactured in the new industry. It is not necessary to decide whether that was the intention of the Legislature, but the petitioner has not been required to issue serially numbered cash/credit memos for sales of goods manufactured in the new unit by clear language of the statute. Since the Additional Commissioner has not expressed any opinion on this aspect of the matter I do not express any final opinion on this issue. The further requirement of rule 3(66)(iv) is that a dealer shall apply for a certificate of eligibility on or before April 14, 1983. In other words, the production of the new industrial unit must start for the first time before March 14, 1983 and the application for a certificate of eligibility must be made within a month, that is, before April 14, 1983. However there is a proviso to rule 3(66)(iv). The proviso enables a registered dealer to apply for a certificate of eligibility on or after April 1, 1983. However there is a proviso to rule 3(66)(iv). The proviso enables a registered dealer to apply for a certificate of eligibility on or after April 1, 1983. In other words, a registered dealer in whose unit production has commenced on or before March 14, 1983, may apply for a certificate of eligibility on or after April 1, 1983. No time-limit has been laid down for application of eligibility certificate by a registered dealer. In other words, rule 3(66)(iv) requires a dealer to apply for a certificate of eligibility on or before April 14, 1983, which is the last date for making such application. In its case, a registered dealer may apply for a certificate of eligibility on or after April 1, 1983, without any limitation of time. If that be the position, I fail to see how the petitioner can be denied eligibility certificate on the basis of delay in making the application. Admittedly, the petitioner was registered as a dealer on June 6, 1983 and the application for eligibility certificate was made on June 8, 1983. The petitioner clearly comes within the proviso to rule 3(66)(iv). Therefore, the petitioner's application should not have been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on the ground that the application should have been made before such last date for filing such application fixed by the statute, that is, on or before April 14, 1983. The writ petition, therefore, must succeed. There will be an order as prayed in terms of prayers (b) and (c) of the petition. There will be no order as to costs. Writ Petition allowed.