JUDGMENT ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J. This application has been filed challenging the judgment and order of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal dated February 17, 2004. By the said order of the Tribunal the petitioner's prayer for reopening the assessment has been rejected as being barred by limitation. The relevant facts of this case are discussed below. The petitioner, a private limited company, is a manufacturer of polythene foam and also is a seller of some other items. The petitioner is also a registered dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and also West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994. On January 8, 1993 the petitioner applied for eligibility certificate under rule 3(66a) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules"). On the basis of the said application the Commercial Tax Officer, Central Section, visited the factory of the petitioner and gave a report that the petitioner is a manufacturer of plastic foam and the same is a banned item for the purpose of getting eligibility certificate under rule 3(66a) of the said Rules. Accordingly, a report was submitted recommending rejection of the petitioner's application. In view of such adverse report being filed, the petitioner requested the respondent No. 1 to treat the petitioner's application filed for benefits under rule 3(66a) of the said Rules as one under section 10F of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (hereinafter called "the said Act"). In fact the petitioner also on legal advice made an application for deferment of tax under section 10F of the said Act. However, the petitioner's application for deferment of tax under section 10F of the said Act was granted with effect from February 20, 1993 and the petitioner's application for eligibility certificate was rejected on April 20, 1994. According to the petitioner such rejection took place without giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and without considering the application on merits. Against the said order dated April 20, 1994 the petitioner filed a revision on April 10, 1996 before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Then a second revision was filed. Against the said order dated April 20, 1994 the petitioner filed a revision on April 10, 1996 before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Then a second revision was filed. This time the Additional Commissioner held in favour of the petitioner by an order dated March 8, 2001 and directed the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes to consider the petitioner's application under rule 3(66a) on merits and was pleased to set aside the previous order. By the concluding portion of the said order the Additional Commissioner directed the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to consider the petitioner's application filed for relief under rule 3(66a) on merits and pass a fresh order after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. Thereafter the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes took up the matter for a fresh hearing. Then by an order dated February 12, 2002 the Assistant Commissioner was pleased to hold that the plastic foam sheet manufactured by the petitioner is not a banned item under the entry at item No. 13 of Schedule X appended to rule 3(66a) of the said Rules. The authority thereafter came to a finding that the petitioner is eligible to get tax holiday as a manufacturer of plastic foam sheet and direction was given for issuance of an eligibility certificate for tax holiday under rule 3(66a) of the said Rules for 3 years with effect from January 5, 1993 to the petitioner as a manufacturer of plastic foam sheet. After getting the said order the petitioner immediately applied before the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Beadon Street Charge, for reopening of the assessment for the period of three years with effect from January 5, 1993 to January 4, 1996. But the said application of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No. 1, inter alia, on the ground that such prayer of the petitioner is barred by limitation. Challenging the said finding the petitioner filed an application under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 before the Taxation Tribunal in the month of July, 2002. The said application was heard by the Tribunal and the impugned order dated February 17, 2004 was passed rejecting the petitioner's application as barred by limitation. Challenging the said finding the petitioner filed an application under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 before the Taxation Tribunal in the month of July, 2002. The said application was heard by the Tribunal and the impugned order dated February 17, 2004 was passed rejecting the petitioner's application as barred by limitation. In the said impugned order the Tribunal has narrated most of the facts stated above and agreed with the observation of the respondent No. 1. The Tribunal came to the above finding, inter alia, on the ground that in the period between the filing of the first revision application and the date of getting eligibility certificate under rule 3(66a) six years have lapsed and under section 48 of the 1994 Act reopening for fresh assessment after a lapse of six years is barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the said finding argued that the question of limitation cannot be applied in the facts of the present case inasmuch as the petitioner's claim for eligibility under rule 3(66a) of the said Rules was allowed on the basis of the second revision only in the month of February, 2002 and such grant was made with effect from January 5, 1993. Along with that, eligibility certificate granted under section 10F was cancelled. Immediately thereafter in April, 2002, which is within two months from the date of grant of eligibility certificate by the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner applied before the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, for reopening of the assessment for the period of three years with effect from January 5, 1993 on the basis of the order passed by the adjudicating authority. Such order of the adjudicating authority dated February 12, 2002 has not been challenged and is binding and valid between the parties. The learned counsel submitted that in view of the clear order dated February 12, 2002 the petitioner's claim for reopening of the assessment cannot be said to be barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the petitioner's claim is barred by limitation in view of the fact that six years' period has lapsed in between. The learned counsel for the Revenue could not refute the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not responsible for the lapse of the period of six years. The learned counsel for the Revenue could not refute the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not responsible for the lapse of the period of six years. The matter was pending adjudication and it was only finally adjudicated in the month of February, 2002 to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to tax holiday and the eligibility certificate under rule 3(66a) of the said Rules. The adjudicating authority has granted the said certificate with effect from January 5, 1993. We find that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has considerable substance in it. That being the clear factual and legal position we are unable to uphold the order of the Tribunal. We are of the view that when the petitioner's right became crystallised on the basis of the order of the adjudicating authority in 2002 and that authority has granted the petitioner the right to claim eligibility certificate under rule 3(66a) of the said Rules for three years with effect from January 5, 1993 the Tribunal should have upheld the claim of the petitioner since the Tribunal did not find any error in the order dated February 12, 2002. By holding to the contrary the Tribunal has acted erroneously in law. The order of the Tribunal is therefore set aside. The authorities are directed to give the petitioner the benefit under the order dated February 12, 2002 by allowing the reopening of assessment for a period of three years with effect from January 5, 1993. This writ application is therefore allowed. The order of the Tribunal is quashed. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment if applied for be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible. TAPAN KUMAR DUTT, J. - I agree. Petition allowed.