JUDGMENT 1. IN the writ petition, the petitioner - a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short the 'Central Act') - has challenged the order dated 12th October, 2009 passed in Revision Case No. 1548 of 2007-08 by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, West Bengal, the respondent No. 1 on the ground that the said respondent should have accepted the certificate issued on a letter head of the selling dealer in respect of purchases made in the period under consideration. Submission has been made that since the transactions are not in dispute, appropriate relief under section 8(5) of the Central Act should have been granted. It is submitted that prior to 1st June, 2002, when the notification came into effect, the claim of the petitioner was allowed by the authority concerned. Therefore, the conditions in the said notification may be waived for the other purchases. 2. I find that the respondent No. 1 while passing the order had rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the notification bearing No. 2373-F.T., dated 2nd August. 2002 does not allow exemption on the basis of a single certificate on a letter head issued by the selling dealer in respect of all purchases in the period under consideration. I find that the State Government had issued the notification on 2nd August, 2002 in exercise of the power conferred by section 8(5) of the Central Act which is as under: "Conditional exemption from payment of tax. I find that the State Government had issued the notification on 2nd August, 2002 in exercise of the power conferred by section 8(5) of the Central Act which is as under: "Conditional exemption from payment of tax. Notification No. 2373-F.T., dated 2-8-2002 WHEREAS the Governor is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the public interest; Now, THEREFORE, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (5) of section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (74 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Governor is pleased hereby to direct that no tax under the said Act shall be payable by a dealer having his place of business in West Bengal in respect of sales by him, in the course of inter- State trade or commerce to a registered dealer or the Government from such place of business, of goods mentioned in column (2) of the Table below, on the fulfillment of the requirements laid down in sub-section (4) of the said section and subject to the conditions referred to in column (3) of the said Table: S.I. No. Description of goods Conditions, if any, Any goods on which tax has been paid on maximum retail price under sub-section (4) of section 16 of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (West Ben. Act XXXVII of 2003), as subsequently amended. Where such goods were purchased from a registered dealer who had manufactured such goods in West Bengal or had brought such goods into West Bengal from any place outside West Bengal and where, on the body of the tax invoice issued by the selling dealer it is certified by him under his signature as under: (a) The goods sold under this tax invoice have been manufactured by me/us in West Bengal or have been brought by me/us into West Bengal; (b) I/we have duly paid tax under the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003, as subsequently amended, on maximum retail price in respect of sales mentioned in this tax invoice. 3. IT is evident from the notification that for the purpose of exemption the selling dealer should certify under his signature on the body of the tax invoice. Thus, as seen, there is no scope for furnishing a separate certificate. 3. IT is evident from the notification that for the purpose of exemption the selling dealer should certify under his signature on the body of the tax invoice. Thus, as seen, there is no scope for furnishing a separate certificate. In the instant case, as evident from the order under challenge, a separate certificate was issued by the selling dealer which is not permissible under the notification dated 2nd August, 2002. IT is to be noted that in matters pertaining to revenue, there is no scope for any intentment. Language used in a notification must be strictly construed. Therefore, the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, the respondent No. 1 was justified in rejecting the revisional application of the petitioner. Hence, for the reasons as aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is, thus, dismissed. 4. THERE will be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis. Writ petition dismissed.