JUDGMENT P. C. BANERJI (Technical Member). - This application under article 226 of the Constitution of India filed in the High Court at Calcutta has been transferred to this Tribunal in terms of section 15 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, for disposal. 2. The applicant is Messrs. Bani Polymers, a partnership firm, having its place of business at 56, Topsia Road, South, Calcutta-700 046. 3. The case of the applicant may be briefly stated as follows : The applicant is a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954, and started business on 1st March, 1979. The applicant is also registered as a small-scale industrial unit with the Directorate of Cottage and Small-scale Industries with effect from the 25th February, 1980. The applicant started manufacture of rubber goods from the 1st January, 1980. Thereafter it applied to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes for eligibility certificates on 3rd January, 1981, under rule 3(66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 and under section 4AA of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954. The applicant claimed that it had produced all the necessary vouchers with regard to the plant and machinery purchased by it. It purchased plant and machinery for a sum of Rs. 64,229.21 till 1st April, 1981. Besides, it had taken on lease some machineries for a period of 5 years from Messrs. Bani Tyre & Rubber Co., a sister concern, against a monthly payment of Rs. 1,000. The applicant had also taken on lease the land and structure at premises No. 56, Topsia Road, South, Calcutta-700 064, belonging to the said sister concern, for a period of 10 years on a monthly rental of Rs. 500. The Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 29th April, 1981, rejected the prayers for eligibility certificates on the following grounds, namely, (i) that it was not a new industrial unit, (ii) that the applicant had procured machineries otherwise than by purchase and the correct valuation of the machineries so procured cannot be furnished; and that all the purchase vouchers and other documents, etc., for purchase of plant and machinery have not been kept, and (iii) that proper accounts of purchase of raw materials have not been maintained in the respective ledgers. Against the said order, revisional petitions were filed with the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, who by his order dated 3rd August, 1981, confirmed the Assistant Commissioner's order of rejection of eligibility certificates by observing that the procurement of machinery by way of lease was excluded from the scheme of tax holiday and hence the applicant was disentitled to obtain the eligibility certificates. He, however, did not deal with other issues as it was considered by him unnecessary. It is mainly this particular order of the Additional Commissioner which is under challenge. 4. In its affidavit-in-reply the applicant has introduced certain facts which were not there in its writ petition filed in the High Court in June, 1982. It has now stated that the applicant had purchased all those leased machineries in the month of September, 1981 and that the total investment on account of all the plant and machinery aggregated Rs. 2,95,788.86. It claimed that since September, 1981, i.e., after the order of the Additional Commissioner was passed, there was no question of leasing of plant and machinery. Curiously enough, this fact as stated earlier was not mentioned in the writ petition filed in 1982. At this stage we cannot possibly take this into consideration, since the respondents had no opportunity to make their submission thereon. 5. The main question for determination in this case is whether the scheme provides for tax holiday in respect of a new industrial unit established by procuring plants and machinery partly by way of lease and partly by way of purchase. On this will depend whether the order of the Additional Commissioner rejecting the eligibility certificates was justified. 6. It has been argued by Mr. Sasanka Sen, the learned Advocate for the applicant, that rule 3(66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 and section 4AA of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1954, read with Notification No. 1809-F.T. dated 1st April, 1976, both as amended on and from 1st April, 1980, did not bar procurement of plant and machinery by way of lease. According to him this bar was subsequently introduced, but the law at the relevant time did not disentitle a dealer, who had taken plant and machinery on lease, from getting an eligibility certificate. According to him this bar was subsequently introduced, but the law at the relevant time did not disentitle a dealer, who had taken plant and machinery on lease, from getting an eligibility certificate. He further argued that the applicant had produced all the vouchers and other documents for purchases of plant and machinery for establishment of the industry and that the documents with regard to lease in respect of the remaining plant and machinery were also produced. He further contended that it was possible to work out the total cost of the plant and machinery taken on lease either by capitalising the lease rent or obtaining their actual cost and that the total investment on plant and machinery purchased as well leased would be well within Rs. 20 lacs as stipulated in the explanation appended to rule 3(66) and Notification No. 1809-F.T. dated 1st April, 1976. He, therefore, contended that his client had fulfilled all the requirements as laid down in the relevant statute and the rules for obtaining eligibility certificate. Alternatively, he also argued that in terms of the amended definition of "sale" in section 2(g)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, a lease of this nature is also deemed to be sale or purchase, as the case may be. 7. The alternative argument of Mr. Sen, however, does not hold water inasmuch as the said incorporation/amendment in the definition of "sale" was made with effect from 1st April, 1984 and the impugned transaction relates to a period prior to 1st April, 1980. This point is, therefore, not relevant so far as the present case is concerned. We are, therefore, not entering into the merit of the contention. 8. Mr. D. Majumdar, the learned State Representative, contended that the statute does not provide for exemption of tax in respect of industrial units established with leased plant and machinery and it speaks of only purchase of such plant and machinery. He emphasised the fact that the scheme is meant to encourage establishment of new small-scale units by providing them certain incentives by way of financial concessions and that it was necessary to ensure that only such small-scale units get the benefit. He added that a limit on investment in plant and machinery has been prescribed to restrict the benefit to a specified group of industrial units. He added that a limit on investment in plant and machinery has been prescribed to restrict the benefit to a specified group of industrial units. He gave an example of a unit having invested a little less than Rs. 20 lacs in plant and machinery and obtaining additional plants and machinery worth a crore of rupees on rental for a paltry sum thereby keeping its investment on plant and machinery within the prescribed ceiling. He observed that the statute did not envisage such a case to be given the benefit. Finally he observed that in case his contention was rejected, the case might be remanded to the Additional Commissioner for consideration of the other objections raised by the Assistant Commissioner but not considered at the time of revision. 9. It is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of law to understand their full import and meaning. The provisions of rule 3(66) and those in Notification No. 1809-F.T. dated 1st April, 1976, as amended are identical. Apart from other conditions, the dealer will be eligible for tax benefit if he "keeps vouchers and other documents for purchases of plant and machinery for establishment of such industry". The benefit is available to a newly set up small-scale industry. A newly set up small-scale industry means a new industrial unit, (i) with an investment up to rupees twenty lakhs on plant and machinery, excluding the value of land and building, (ii) which is registered with the Cottage and Small-scale Industries Department of the Government of West Bengal on or before the ...... (iii) ......... (iv) which is liable to pay tax as a dealer under the Act, but shall not include any expansion, addition or modification of an existing industrial unit, (v) ............" Thus the new industrial unit has to be registered as a small-scale industrial unit and its investment on plant and machinery should not exceed a particular ceiling limit. All these provisions are required to be harmoniously construed in order to understand the scheme and its implications. The scheme is based on classification of industries on the criterion of investment. The benefit of exemption is only available to a small-scale industry defined on the basis of a ceiling in respect of investment in plant and machinery. It is necessary to know the meaning of "investment" since this has not been defined either in the Act or the Rules. The benefit of exemption is only available to a small-scale industry defined on the basis of a ceiling in respect of investment in plant and machinery. It is necessary to know the meaning of "investment" since this has not been defined either in the Act or the Rules. This is a technical word having a precise technical signification in the financial and industrial circles. Black's Law Dictionary defines "investment" thus : "An expenditure to acquire property or other assets in order to produce revenue. The placing of capital or laying out of money in a way intended to secure income or profit from its employment." Chambers 20th Century Dictionary defines "invest" as follows : "To lay out money, make a purchase." 10. It is obvious that "investment" connotes "purchase" or capital expenditure on purchase. Expenditure on lease is not investment, nor is it an expenditure of a capital nature. The ceiling fixed for investment, therefore, relates to a limit fixed for purchase of plant and machinery. The investment on plant and machinery clearly excludes any expenditure by way of rent on leased plant and machinery. We can think of a hypothetical case of an industrial unit which, after having invested in plant and machinery up to the ceiling limit, takes on lease additional plant and machinery worth about a crore of rupees and claims exemption of tax. This is a preposterous situation since this goes counter to the entire scheme of classification of industries for the purpose of tax holiday on the basis of valuation of assets in the shape of plant and machinery. In other words, since plant and machinery taken on lease is outside the computation of investment on plant and machinery, there will be virtually no limit to the value of such plant and machinery, which could be installed on lease, thereby rendering the entire scheme of tax holiday based on classification of industries ineffectual and nugatory. It could not be the intention of the Legislature to give benefits to such a case. The proposition that there is no bar to taking plant and machinery on lease, pushed to its logical conclusion will, therefore, end up in an absurdity. Hence such a view being unreasonable and illogical has to be eschewed. 11. It could not be the intention of the Legislature to give benefits to such a case. The proposition that there is no bar to taking plant and machinery on lease, pushed to its logical conclusion will, therefore, end up in an absurdity. Hence such a view being unreasonable and illogical has to be eschewed. 11. Viewed against this background it would be easier for us to understand what the statute means when it says that the dealer has to keep "vouchers and other documents for purchases of plant and machinery for establishment of such industry". It is not meaningless that the scheme does not require keeping of such documents for plant and machinery obtained otherwise than by way of purchase. It only means that the dealer has to purchase all the plant and machinery required for establishment of the industry and maintain the related vouchers. There is no scope in the scheme for taking any plant and machinery on lease to establish industry. If a unit decides to take plant and machinery on lease, it has to necessarily give up any claim for tax holiday. 12. One question, however, remains unanswered. Is the unit really a new industrial unit ? Is it not, in fact, an expansion of an existing industrial unit, which has been taken on lease by the applicant ? Since the question has not been specifically raised in this form, we have not considered this aspect of the case. 13. In view of the reasons given above, we hold that the Additional Commissioner was justified in rejecting the applications for eligibility certificates. Since the applicant is not entitled to tax exemption, the Commercial Tax Officer was competent to assess tax and issue demand notice. 14. In the result, the application is dismissed. There will be no order for costs. B. C. CHAKRABARTI (Chairman). - I agree. L. N. RAY (Judicial Member). - I agree. Application dismissed.