JUDGMENT In this revisional application the only short point that has been raised on behalf of the applicant is whether renewal of the eligibility certificate for the period July 1982 to June 1983 was rightly rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and whether the order of the Additional Commissioner confirming that order substantially is sustainable. Admitted facts are : the applicant is a small-scale industrial unit and was granted eligibility certificate for the period January 24, 1981 to June 30, 1981. Thereafter the eligibility certificate was renewed for the year ended June 30, 1982. The applicant again applied for renewal on March 24, 1983 for another year ended June 30, 1983. This prayer for renewal for the period ending June, 1983 was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner by his order dated November 9, 1984. The applicant thereupon moved a revisional application before the Additional Commissioner who passed order dated May 22, 1989, who also rejected the prayer for renewal, but on somewhat different considerations. Thereupon the applicant has preferred the present application. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant and the learned State Representative. The scope of the present dispute is very limited. The Assistant Commissioner in disposing of the application for renewal took three grounds, namely, that he found the cash book written up to June 30, 1984 that there were no vouchers showing payment of Rs. 35.50 made in cash for purchase of grease and mobil and that there were similarly no vouchers showing payment of Rs. 100 on August 30, 1983 to Diamond Engineering Works for new soap cases. The dealer failed to produce money receipt against these payments. The Assistant Commissioner further found that the applicant was running at a loss in the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 and that the dealer put stress on production of domestic goods which proved detrimental to the business. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner concluded that the stress on production of domestic goods had adversely affected the economic viability of the newly set up industry. On these three counts the Assistant Commissioner rejected the prayer for renewal. The learned Additional Commissioner in disposing of the revisional application rightly observed that the first two grounds were minor in nature and not worthy of consideration. But he rejected the prayer on the following observations : "It is interesting to note that from 1986-87 onwards there was no manufacturing activity whatsoever by the industry. The learned Additional Commissioner in disposing of the revisional application rightly observed that the first two grounds were minor in nature and not worthy of consideration. But he rejected the prayer on the following observations : "It is interesting to note that from 1986-87 onwards there was no manufacturing activity whatsoever by the industry. The activity of the petitioner leads one to the inevitable conclusion that just after the tax exemption period ending in 1985-86, they have stopped manufacturing and selling their own product. Provision contained under rule 3(66) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, gives incentive to the newly set up industries and the purpose of such provision was to give concession to new industries by way of tax holiday for some time so that the industries could go on and ultimately could establish in the market and pay revenue to the Government in the long run. The object of the said provision was that the eligibility certificate should not be renewed if anything is done which adversely affects the economic viability of the newly set up industries. In the instant case the industry ran at a loss for four consecutive years from 1981-82 to 1984-85 and thereafter almost during the last three years the unit has ceased to manufacture and sell any product of its own. Thus the purpose of the whole scheme behind the provision of the relevant rule is frustrated and Government is not getting any revenue from the industry during the period when it ought to have received the same. In fact, the petitioner cannot enjoy the benefit unilaterally without having any corresponding liability to pay tax in the subsequent periods." On this consideration the learned Additional Commissioner confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. There is no dispute that there is nothing in the Rules framed under the Bengal Finance Sales Tax Act which indicate that an industrial unit which has been granted eligibility certificate must have to continue to run the industry for sometime at least so that after the expire of the period of tax holiday the Government may eventually earn some revenue. The industry may have to close down for various factors. Moreover the fact that the industry has been closed down cannot be the sole criterion for determining whether the prayer for renewal of eligibility certificate for an antecedent period should be refused. The industry may have to close down for various factors. Moreover the fact that the industry has been closed down cannot be the sole criterion for determining whether the prayer for renewal of eligibility certificate for an antecedent period should be refused. In order to reject the prayer for renewal on that ground it must have to be shown or found as a fact that the economic viability was disturbed due to any act of commission or emission on the part of the applicant praying for renewal of the eligibility certificate. In the instant case we are concerned with the period ending June 1983. The fact that the Additional Commissioner in 1989 found that the object of getting some revenue in further has been frustrated or that the applicant after the period 1985 has practically ceased to manufacture and sell any product of its own cannot furnish any ground for refusing the renewal of eligibility certificate for the period 1982-83 which alone was under consideration of the Assistant Commissioner and thereafter the Additional Commissioner. There is no finding either by the Assistant Commissioner or by the Additional Commissioner that the applicant had done something or has failed to do something which he should have done which resulted in disturbing the economic viability of the industry. In the absence of such a finding a casual averment that it is not economically viable is not by itself sufficient ground for refusing to grant the renewal of the eligibility certificate. We may reiterate that there is no finding that the loss which the applicant has suffered and to which emphasis has been laid by the Assistant Commissioner as also the Additional Commissioner was due to any act on the part of the applicant. The applicant has its own explanation for the loss. But we do not think it necessary to enter into this question in the present application because the impugned order does not contain any positive find that the economic viability was disturbed due to any activity on the part of the applicant. In that view of the matter we are unable to sustain the order of the Additional Commissioner confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner and we direct the appropriate authority to renew the eligibility certificate for the period ending in June 1983. The application is, thus, allowed. The main application is, thus, disposed of. In that view of the matter we are unable to sustain the order of the Additional Commissioner confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner and we direct the appropriate authority to renew the eligibility certificate for the period ending in June 1983. The application is, thus, allowed. The main application is, thus, disposed of. There will be no order for costs. Application allowed.