Indira Banerjee, JJ. ( 1 ) THE petitioner claims to carry on business of manufacture of plastic injection moulded goods. The petitioner is registered under the West Bengal sales Tax Act, 1994 hereinafter referred to as the 1994 Act and the Central sales Tax Act, 1956 hereinafter referred to as the 1956 Act, the Registration nos. being AW/1870 and 1780 (AW) Central respectively. The petitioner is also registered under the Value Added Tax Act, the Registration No. being 19200688281. ( 2 ) SECTION 41 of the 1994 Act provides as follows: -"41. Remission of tax payable by new and existing industrial units.- (1) Where a registered dealer manufacturers any goods, other than such goods as may be prescribed, in a newly set up industrial unit established by him, or in an expanded portion of an existing industrial unit, in West bengal, the tax payable by such dealer under this Act according to his returns referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 30 in respect of sales of such goods manufactured in such unit or purchase of goods for use directly in the manufacture of such goods shall, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed, be remitted or continue to be remitted until the amount or the aggregate of the amounts of such tax exceeds the limit of such percentage of the gross value of fixed capital assets as on the date on which the tax becomes payable for a return period in respect of sales of goods manufactured in such newly set up industrial unit or expanded portion of such existing industrial unit, not exceeding one hundred and fifty per centum of such gross value as may be prescribed of seventy-five crore rupees, whichever is less, and different percentage of such gross value may be prescribed for such newly set up industrial units or expanded portion of such existing industrial units, having regard to the location of such units, in such areas as may be prescribed. " ( 3 ) UNDER Section 41 newly set up industrial units are entitled to and upon expansion, expanded portion of the newly set up industrial units are entitled to remission of tax for such period of time as may be prescribed in Rule 137 of the sales Tax Rules, 1905, framed under the 1994 Act. " ( 3 ) UNDER Section 41 newly set up industrial units are entitled to and upon expansion, expanded portion of the newly set up industrial units are entitled to remission of tax for such period of time as may be prescribed in Rule 137 of the sales Tax Rules, 1905, framed under the 1994 Act. ( 4 ) TAX exemption as aforesaid is conditional upon compliance of the formalities and conditions stipulated in Rules 128 and 137 of the West Bengal sales lax Rules, 1995. ( 5 ) IN terms of Section 41 of the 1994 Act two notifications being Notification nos. 1324-FT and 1325-FT both dated 28th April, 1995 were issued under section 8 (5) of the 1956 Act with effect from 1 st May, 1985. ( 6 ) THE first notification provided for remission of tax payable on sales made in course of inter-state trade by newly set up industrial units and the second notification provided for tax remission of sales made in course of interstate trade in case of goods manufactured at the expanded portion "of the industrial unit. ( 7 ) THE petitioner applied to the respondent No. 1 for remission of tax under Section 41 of the 1994 Act in respect of sales in West Bengal of plastic injection moulded goods manufactured at the newly expanded portion of its industrial unit. ( 8 ) THE petitioner was duly granted the eligibility certificate for the expanded portion of the industrial unit under Section 41 of the 1994 Act. By virtue of the eligibility certificate the petitioner enjoyed remission of tax on the sale of its products manufactured in the expanded portion of the newly set up Industrial unit in West Bengal. ( 9 ) THE petitioner got the benefit of remission of tax in respect of plastic injection moulded goods manufactured at the expanded portion of the said industrial unit in course of inter-state trade or commerce. ( 10 ) A Notification No. 2373-FT dated 2nd August, 2002 was issued in exercise of power under Section 8 (5) of the 1956 Act. The said notification was effective with effect from 1st June, 2002. ( 10 ) A Notification No. 2373-FT dated 2nd August, 2002 was issued in exercise of power under Section 8 (5) of the 1956 Act. The said notification was effective with effect from 1st June, 2002. ( 11 ) THE said notification provided that no tax would be payable by a dealer having his plan of business in West Bengal in respect of any sales in course of inter-state trade or commerce to a registered dealer or the Government, on fulfilment of the requirement of Section 8 (4) of the 1956 Act. ( 12 ) SECTION 8 (4) of the 1956 Act provides for submission of Declaration forms after obtaining the same from the registered dealer and the Government to whom the sales are made. ( 13 ) IN view of the aforesaid notification dated 2nd August, 2002 no remission of tax would be available in respect of sale to unregistered dealers outside West Bengal. Remission of tax would also not be available in respect of sales to registered dealers or to the Government outside West Bengal unless declaration forms were obtained from the concerned registered dealer, or the government, as the case might be, in terms of Section 8 (4) of the Act. ( 14 ) THE Notification No. 2373-FT dated 2nd August, 2002 was issued after grant of eligibility certificate to the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner, therefore, remained under the belief that the notification would apply only to dealers who set up and/or expanded industrial units after 1st June, 2002. The petitioner thus claimed remission of tax on sales made in course of inter-state trade or commerce to all dealers including Government. ( 15 ) THE respondent No. 1 called upon the petitioner to rectify the returns filed under the 1956 Act by making payment of tax on sales to unregistered dealers. The petitioner duly appeared before the respondent No. 1 and contended that the notification dated 2nd August, 2002 could not be made applicable in case of petitioner and that the petitioner was not liable to tax on sales to unregistered dealers of goods manufactured at the expanded portion of its unit. The petitioner duly appeared before the respondent No. 1 and contended that the notification dated 2nd August, 2002 could not be made applicable in case of petitioner and that the petitioner was not liable to tax on sales to unregistered dealers of goods manufactured at the expanded portion of its unit. ( 16 ) IN view of the threat of the respondent No. 1 that no declaration forms would be issued unless tax on sales to unregistered dealers were paid, the petitioner admitted its tax liability under protest and paid the tax in instalments. ( 17 ) THE short question involved in this writ application is whether notification No. 2373-FT dated 2nd August, 2002 could be made applicable to the petitioner who had already been granted exemption of tax in respect of its expanded industrial unit. ( 18 ) THIS Court (Bhattacharya, J.) by its judgment and order dated 18th june, 2004 in the case of M/s. N. S. Text Prints v. CTO and Ors. , reported in 45 sta 8 held that the notification dated 2nd August, 2002 could not be made applicable in respect of dealers who were enjoying exemption of tax under earlier notifications issued before amendment of Section 8 (5 ). ( 19 ) THE learned Single Judge held as follows: -"it is now settled position of law that on the basis of existing eligibility, if a person is allured to set up an industrial unit in expectation of getting benefit of tax for a particular period on fulfilment of certain requirements and once on the basis of such requirements such industrial unit is given such benefit, subsequently, by way of amendment such right cannot be taken away. The amendment that has been made will be applicable to the other units which are set up after the amendment notification has come into force. " ( 20 ) THE aforesaid judgment has been upheld by a Division Bench comprising D. K. Seth and Maharaj Sinha, JJ. The judgment of the Division bench in the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. v. N. S. Text Prints Pvt. Ltd. is reported in 47 STA 161. " ( 20 ) THE aforesaid judgment has been upheld by a Division Bench comprising D. K. Seth and Maharaj Sinha, JJ. The judgment of the Division bench in the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. v. N. S. Text Prints Pvt. Ltd. is reported in 47 STA 161. ( 21 ) IN the aforesaid case, the Division Bench held as follows: -"now we may turn to the notification dated 2nd August, 2002 which appears to have been issued for general application to all dealers in respect of the specified items as provided in item 2 on fulfilment of the conditions provided in column 3 therein. The application of this notification was not confined only to newly setup industries whereas the notification dated 9th July, 1996 was intended solely and exclusively for newly set up industries. Though, however, the notification dated 2nd August, 2002 included in item Nos. 2 and 3 newly set up industries but that was of general application subject to the fulfilment of the conditions in relation to the goods specified in the respective items. At the same time we may note that the notification dated 2nd August, 2002 has not prescribed that it was issued in supersession or suppression of the earlier notification. The application of the amendment and the notification being prospective and the earlier notification, which was dealing with newly set up industries alone, having not been superseded or suppressed, it is very difficult to reconcile the two notifications so as to make the subsequent notification applicable to a case where exemption has been granted under the earlier notification in respect of the unexpired period of tax holiday. When an exemption has been granted pursuant to a special notification meant for the newly set up industries alone granting five years' tax holiday subject to the conditions mentioned therein, the same can be said to have created a light as was held in the decision of Health Guard Laboratories (supra)which cannot be affected by reason of a subsequent amendment and the notification which are of general application. " ( 22 ) MR. S. R. Islam appearing on behalf of the respondent Sales Tax authorities submitted that the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was amended with effect from 1st June, 2002. " ( 22 ) MR. S. R. Islam appearing on behalf of the respondent Sales Tax authorities submitted that the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was amended with effect from 1st June, 2002. The amendment clarified that the tax remission in course of inter-state trade or commerce would be applicable in case of sale only to a registered dealer or the Government. ( 23 ) IN view of the amendment the notification dated 2nd August, 2002 referred to above had to be issued notifying that remission of sales tax would only be available in case of sales to registered dealers and to the Government and on production of Sales Tax Declaration forms from the registered dealers to whom the sales were made. ( 24 ) MR. Islam submitted that upon amendment of the 1956 Act, there could be no question of giving any effect and/or further effect to the earlier circular. ( 25 ) MR. Islam relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of shree Jagannath Packers and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors. reported in 14 stc 26 where the Supreme Court held that promissory estoppel would not be apply and promise could be withdrawn without notice in case of overriding public interest,resource crunch and consequential change of policy and financial review would justify restriction of incentives. ( 26 ) MR. Islam also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Sarvotam Vegetables Products and Ors. , reported in 1996 (3) SCC 639 where the Supreme Court held that the power of exemption of Sales Tax had to be exercised in public interest in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 (5) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. ( 27 ) HOWEVER, the Division Bench of this Court has in the case of State of west Bengal and Ors. v. M. S. Text Prints Pvt. Ltd. referred to above, considered the amendment and the subsequent notification dated 2nd August, 2002, affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge and held that the notification dated 2nd August, 2002 would not apply to newly set up and/or newly expanded units which had been granted exemption under the earlier notifications. v. M. S. Text Prints Pvt. Ltd. referred to above, considered the amendment and the subsequent notification dated 2nd August, 2002, affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge and held that the notification dated 2nd August, 2002 would not apply to newly set up and/or newly expanded units which had been granted exemption under the earlier notifications. A Special leave Petition from the judgment and order (Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)No. 8918/2006 has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court by its order dated 4th July, 2006. ( 28 ) THE judgment of the Division Bench is binding on the Single Bench. There will, therefore, be an order in terms of prayer (a) and (b) of the petition.