JUDGMENT ( 1. ) ( 2. ) SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN, J. IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the eligibility certificate granted by order dated 10th January, 1984, under rule 3 (66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, instead of under rule 3 (66a) of the said Rules and also for renewal thereof up to the period of five years. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a manufacturer of nozzles for jotter refills having its factory at 22, J. N. Mukheriee Road, Bandhaghat, Howrah as a newly set up small-scale industry having SSI Registration No. 21/09/10903/pnt/839 dated 16th November, 1983, granted by the Department of Cottage and Small-scale INdustries. The Petitioner effected the first sale of its manufactured goods on 24th November, 1982, when the tax holiday exemption to SSI dealers was guided by rule 3 (66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941. The period of tax holiday exemption on sales was for five years in case where the dealer's factory is situated in Calcutta Metropolitan District area and seven years for those who are outside the Calcutta Metropolitan District area. Thereafter on and from 1st April, 1983, rule 3 (66a) came into force whereby the tax holiday exemption period was reduced to three years. The petitioner applied for sales tax registration on 10th March, 1983, and the registration certificate was granted on 20th June, 1983, giving retrospective effect from 10th April, 1983, and the petitioner applied for eligibility certificate on 29th June, 1983, i. e., within one month from the date of order of granting the registration certificate. The learned Assistant Commissioner, South Circle, by his order dated 10th January, 1984, granted eligibility certificate under rule 3 (66a) though the petition for granting such eligibility certificate was made praying the tax holiday exemption under rule 3 (66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941. The said certificate so issued by the said order was valid from 10th April, 1983 to 9th January, 1984. Thereafter the said certificate was renewed on 7th May, 1984, for the period 10th January, 1984 to 30th November 1984. The said certificate so issued by the said order was valid from 10th April, 1983 to 9th January, 1984. Thereafter the said certificate was renewed on 7th May, 1984, for the period 10th January, 1984 to 30th November 1984. On 3rd May, 1985, by another order passed by the Assistant Commissioner the said certificate was further renewed for the period from 1st December 1984 to 23rd November, 1985, upon receipt of the application to that effect from the petitioner. On 28th November, 1985, the petitioner made another application for further renewal from 24th November, 1985, on the ground that the petitioner is entitled to tax holiday for five years as the case of the petitioner should be governed by rule 3 (66) instead of rule 3 (66a ). On 23rd April, 1986, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the petitioner's said application for renewal holding inter alia that the rule 3 (66a) is applicable in the case of the petitioner for which tax holiday was three years and that time has already expired and as such the said certificate cannot be renewed further. The petitioner challenged the said order in revision. On 6th June, 1987, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes passed an order confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner and rejected the application of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved came up before this Court in writ petition. IT is the case of the writ petitioner that though the registration certificate was granted on 20th June, 1983, but the date of effect was given with effect from 10th April, 1983, i. e., when the rule 3 (66) was in force. Retrospective date of effect of the registration certificate means the dealer was deemed to have been registered on and from the said date, i. e., from 10th April, 1983. IT has also been submitted that the petitioner could have applied earlier if the registration certificate was granted within 31st March, 1983. IT has also been contended that the business was started as well as production and first manufacture and sale was effected when the rule 3 (66) was in force. Subsequent amendment in the said Rules cannot prevent the petitioner from claiming the benefit of rule 3 (66) merely for applying such benefit of tax holiday when rule 3 (66a) was in force. Subsequent amendment in the said Rules cannot prevent the petitioner from claiming the benefit of rule 3 (66) merely for applying such benefit of tax holiday when rule 3 (66a) was in force. IT has also been contended that in a case where proceeding was initiated under the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, before the amendment of the Rules was effected the said tax holiday exemption would be in continuation of the original proceeding. IT has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner made the application for registration under the said Act on 10th March, 1983, i. e., within one month from the date of accrual of its liability. The liability to pay tax accrued under section 4 (2) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, on 10th February, 1983. The Commercial Tax Officer granted the certificate of registration on 20th June, 1983, with retrospective effect from 10th April, 1983, and the said certificate of registration was received by the petitioner after 20th June, 1983, and before 29th June, 1983. IT made the application immediately thereafter under rule 3 (66) of the said Rules for granting eligibility certificate in favour of the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner granted eligibility certificate under rule 3 (66a) of the Rules on the ground that the application for granting eligibility certificate was made by the petitioner after 14th April, 1983, and as the rule 3 (66) came to an end on 31st March, 1983. IT appears from record that the petitioner's application for registration made on 10th March, 1983, was only granted on 20th June, 1983, with effect from 10th April, 1983. Therefore, the petitioner had no opportunity to make the application earlier, i. e., within 31st March, 1983. IT is the contention of the petitioner that had the certificate of registration been issued earlier and in time, the petitioner could have applied for eligibility certificate within 31st March itself. The delay on the part of the petitioner is not due to the fault of the petitioner. IT has also been contended that registration was granted subsequent to 1st April, and application could be made subsequent to 1st April. The delay on the part of the petitioner is not due to the fault of the petitioner. IT has also been contended that registration was granted subsequent to 1st April, and application could be made subsequent to 1st April. IT is the case of the writ petitioner that at the time when it applied for grant of eligibility certificate under rule 3 (66) it should have been granted eligibility certificate under the said rule itself and not on rule 3 (66a ). IT has also been submitted that certificate of registration ought to have been given effect to from the date of accrual of liability, i. e., from 10th February, 1983, in view of section 7 (3a) of the said Act but such effect was given from 10th April, 1983. IT has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that in respect of giving effect of the registration certificate either from 10th April, 1983 or 10th February, 1983, the case of the petitioner comes under the purview of old rule 3 (66) as the time for application of eligibility certificate was given up to 14th April, 1983, and the petitioner cannot be held responsible because of the delay in granting eligibility certificate for which the petitioner made application on 29th June, 1983. IT has also been submitted that proviso to rule 3 (66) provides that only a registered dealer can apply for eligibility certificate on or after 1st April, 1983, and as such the application of the petitioner for such certificate on 29th June, 1983, i. e., after 1st April, 1983, cannot be bad. IT has also been contended that the explanation to rule 3 (66) defines the term newly set up small-scale industries as it started production for first time after 31st March, 1978, but not later than 14th March, 1983, and the petitioner admittedly started production on 18th November, 1982, i. e., after 1978 and before 14th March, 1983, and as such it comes under rule 3 (66) not under rule 3 (66a) of the said Rules. Further it was argued that rule 3 (66a) is not applicable in the case of the petitioner on the facts and circumstances already recorded. Further it was argued that rule 3 (66a) is not applicable in the case of the petitioner on the facts and circumstances already recorded. The question for decision is whether the petitioner is entitled to have the eligibility certificate under rule 3 (66) which provides for five years tax holiday or three years tax holiday under the rule 3 (66a) which was introduced with effect from 1st April, 1983, in case of application for eligibility certificate made on 29th June, 1983, i. e., after 1st April, 1983, when the production was started on 18th November, 1982, i. e., after 1978 and before 14th March, 1983, and the liability accrued for registration under section 7 on 10th February, 1983, and certificate was granted on 20th June, 1983, giving retrospective effect from 10th April, 1983. IT is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner admittedly started production of its goods on and from 18th November, 1982, and hence the petitioner's application for eligibility certificate comes under rule 3 (66) as it falls within the explanation to the rule 3 (66) to mean newly set up small-scale industries. According to rule 3 (66) only a registered dealer may apply for certificate for eligibility on or about 1st April, 1983, and the petitioner being the registered dealer made an application on 29th June, 1983, i. e., after 1st April, 1983, even after the introduction of the new rule 3 (66a) with effect from 1st April, 1983, though the petitioner made an application for getting it registered under section 7 of the Act on 10th March, 1983, i. e., within 30 days of the accrual of liability to pay tax under section 4 (2) of the said Act. Under such circumstances certificate for registration ought to have been given effect from 10th February, 1983, but the certificate of registration was granted on 20th June, 1983, with retrospective effect on and from 10th April, 1983, and the certificate was received after 20th June, 1983, and before 29th June, 1983. Application for eligibility certificate was made on 29th June, 1983. Under such circumstances the petitioner claims that the petitioner should be given the benefit of tax holiday for five years under rule 3 (66) and rule 3 (66a) should not be applicable to the petitioner. Application for eligibility certificate was made on 29th June, 1983. Under such circumstances the petitioner claims that the petitioner should be given the benefit of tax holiday for five years under rule 3 (66) and rule 3 (66a) should not be applicable to the petitioner. IT is further submitted that it is well-known rule of construction that in case of doubt, a fiscal statute is to be construed in favour of the tax payer. IT was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Chandulal Harjiwandas v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1967] 63 ITR 627, that a provision for exemption or relief should be so construed as to effectuate the object of the legislature and not to defeat it. The intention of the legislature clearly is to grant tax benefit to newly set up small-scale industries. In this case there is no dispute that a small-scale industry has been set up which otherwise fulfils all the requirements of law to merit the benefit of tax exemption. The period of the benefit was for 5 years when the newly set up small-scale industry came into existence within the meaning of explanation to rule 3 (66 ). This view has been followed by this Court in the case of Daga Metal Industries v. Commercial Tax Officer, Alipore Charge reported in [1988] 70 STC 248. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. reported in [1970] 77 ITR 518, wherein their Lordships of Supreme Court held by a majority view that even if two views are possible the view which is favourable to the assessee must be accepted while construing the provisions of taxing statute. Under these facts and circumstances, it was submitted that the writ application of the petitioner should be allowed quashing the orders of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and also directing the respondent No. 4 to give tax holiday to the petitioner for further two years from the date, i. e., from 24th November, 1985 to 23rd November, 1987. IT has been contended on behalf of the respondents on the other hand that there is also no dispute that the petitioner made his application for eligibility certificate under rule 3 (66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules although the certificate of eligibility was granted under rule 3 (66a) by the department. IT has been contended on behalf of the respondents on the other hand that there is also no dispute that the petitioner made his application for eligibility certificate under rule 3 (66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules although the certificate of eligibility was granted under rule 3 (66a) by the department. IT is also true that if the petitioner could obtain the eligibility certificate under rule 3 (66), the period of its exemption could have run for a period of 5 years. But this rule 3 (66) came to an end on 31st March, 1983, and on and from 1st April 1983 new rule, namely, rule 3 (66a) came into statute book with more or less same terms and conditions as in rule 3 (66) but the period of exemption was brought down to 3 years from 5 years under the new rule. INASMUCH as the new rule 3 (66a) was introduced with effect from 1st April 1983, the application for eligibility certificate received from dealers on or after 1st April, 1983, were naturally required to be dealt with under rule 3 (66a ). In the instant case the petitioner admittedly applied for eligibility certificate on 29th June 1983, after being registered as a dealer under the Act on 20th June 1983, with retrospective validity of the registration certificate from 10th April, 1983, and as such the said application could not but be treated under rule 3 (66a) of the rules according to which the eligibility certificate was granted by an order dated 10th January 1984. THE next contention of the learned Advocate for the respondents is that proviso to rule 3 (66) clause (iv) read with the said clause (iv) itself contemplates that registered dealer may apply for a certificate of eligibility on or after 1st April, 1983, but the period for applying for said certificate is available only up to 14th April, 1983. IT has also been contended that the said eligibility certificate so granted under rule 3 (66a) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, was renewed twice by orders dated 7th May, 1981, and 3rd May, 1985, thereby completing the period of 3 years up to 23rd November, 1985, from the date of petitioner's sale of manufactured goods on 24th November, 1982, and no objection was raised and no revision application was preferred against grant of eligibility certificate under rule 3 (66a ). On the contrary the petitioner itself applied for renewal thereof. Under such circumstances it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the grant of such eligibility certificate should have been under rule 3 (66) and not under rule 3 (66a) and that it is entitled to exemption for a period of 5 years. IT has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that any dealer registered between 1st April, 1983 to 14th April, 1983, may also apply for eligibility certificate within 14th April, 1983, to get the benefit of old rule 3 (66) which otherwise was not available to unregistered dealers. According to the learned Advocate for the respondents the extension of the period of making application for eligibility certificate under the old rule 3 (66) in which there was provision for tax holiday for 5 years [which has been reduced under the new rule 3 (66a) to 3 years] was made available only to registered dealers who were either registered before 31st March, 1983, and who could be registered within 1st April, 1983 to 14th April, 1983, and making application for eligibility certificate within the said period of 1st April, 1983 to 14th April, 1983; since otherwise all dealers registered after 14th April, 1983, or unregistered all the time and making application for eligibility certificate after 31st March, 1983, will automatically be governed by rule 3 (66a) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, with the specific provisions made therein. According to the learned Advocate for the respondents, proviso to rule 3 (66) (iv) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, if and when read with main clause (iv) will clarify the position. IT has been submitted that this would only mean that registered dealer may apply for a certificate of eligibility on or after 1st April, 1983, but before 14th April, 1983, in order to enjoy the benefit of rule 3 (66) under the said proviso to clause (iv) as inserted with effect from 1st April, 1983. IT has been submitted that this would only mean that registered dealer may apply for a certificate of eligibility on or after 1st April, 1983, but before 14th April, 1983, in order to enjoy the benefit of rule 3 (66) under the said proviso to clause (iv) as inserted with effect from 1st April, 1983. According to the learned Advocate for the respondents in the instant case the petitioner although was registered as a dealer retrospectively on and from 10th April, 1983, made application for eligibility certificate on 29th June, 1983, that is long after the prescribed period which was confined to 1st April, 1983 to 14th April, 1983, for a registered dealer in order to enjoy the benefit of rule 3 (66) and as such the application for eligibility certificate though filed under rule 3 (66) could not be treated as such but the eligibility certificate was granted under rule 3 (66a) of the said Rules and was thereafter renewed from time to time under the said Rules. Under such circumstances it has been contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. IT appears to me that the petitioner applied for registration as early as on 10th March, 1983, within 30 days from the date of accrual of liability as the liability to pay tax accrued under section 4 (2) of the said Act on 10th February, 1983. The authorities concerned granted such registration certificate on 20th June, 1983, with retrospective effect from 10th April, 1983. Although the contention of the respondents appears to be correct that any dealer being registered after 1st April can make an application for eligibility certificate within 14th April, 1983, in this case since the petitioner was granted registration with effect from 10th April, 1983, it could make an application for eligibility certificate within the said period of 14th April, 1983 - had its application for registration been disposed of and received by it in time on 10th April, 1983. Since the petitioner's case otherwise comes within the purview of rule 3 (66) and which has not been disputed by the respondents, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the default on the part of the authority concerned. Since the petitioner's case otherwise comes within the purview of rule 3 (66) and which has not been disputed by the respondents, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the default on the part of the authority concerned. There is no explanation furnished on behalf of the respondent-authorities why they took so much time to dispose of the application for grant of registration from 10th March, 1983 to 20th June, 1983. Under such circumstances it is not open for the respondent-authorities to contend that the petitioner will be debarred from tax holiday concession for 5 years and should be given the benefit of rule 3 (66a) for 3 years only on the ground that it could not apply within 14th April, 1983. As already observed the petitioner should not be deprived of the benefits to which it would have been entitled for the inaction and/or laches on the part of the respondent-authorities. Accordingly it is directed that the eligibility certificate granted by the respondents be treated to have been issued under rule 3 (66) and the revisional authority will reconsider the said application and will grant renewal of the said certificate if the petitioner is so entitled in accordance with law considering the fact that it is entitled to tax holiday up to a period of 5 years with effect from the date when the first sale of manufactured goods took place. ACCORDINGLY the order passed by the revisional authority is quashed. This writ petition is disposed of with the direction as above. There will be no order as to costs. LIBERTY to mention. WRIT petition disposed of accordingly.