The Legislature of a State is entitled to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade or intercourse with or within that State as may be required in the public interest.

SATYABRATA SINHA, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated April 18, 1990 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the said learned judge allowed the writ application filed by the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 declaring section 2(4)(b)(ii) of the West Bengal Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1987 Amendment Act") in terms whereof section 6B(2)(e) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was deleted, as unconstitutional.

2. The fact of the matter lies in a very short compass.

3. The petitioner No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. In the year 1979 the State of West Bengal framed a scheme for the purpose of grant of incentives to the newly set up industries; in terms whereof such industries were to enjoy tax holidays for five years within a Metropolitan area and for seven years outside such area.

4. The contention of the petitioners is that in view of the aforementioned scheme they were only entitled to enjoy tax holidays for the aforementioned period not only as regards payment of sales tax but also turnover tax in terms of the provisions of section 6B(2)(e) of the said Act which was deleted with retrospective effect by reason of the 1987 Amendment Act.

5. It is contended that the petitioners were not being granted eligibility certificate for which they filed a writ application and the said writ application having been allowed, an eligibility certificate was granted in their favour.

6. The petitioners allegedly pursuant to or in furtherance of the promise made by the State set up the industry in the year 1980 and the first sale from its manufacturing unit took place on September 21, 1982. According to the petitioner, they were entitled to such tax holidays till 1984 but by reason of the aforementioned 1987 Amendment Act which came into force with effect from July 1, 1987, the said benefit granted to them had been taken away and thus, the said Act should be held to be ultra vires article 14 of the Constitution of India.

7. The learned trial Judge upon hearing the counsel for the parties inter alia, held that the impugned Act was ultra vires article 304 of the Constitution of India. It was held that the respondents being bound by the promise held out to the petitioners were liable to implement the same and thus, the purported amending Act was ultra vires article 14 of the Constitution of India also.

8. Mr. Samarendra Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, inter alia, submitted that despite such tax holidays the petitioners were liable to pay the turnover tax as there no provision for tax holidays in respect of turnover tax.

9. The learned counsel in this connection has drawn our attention to the provision of rule 3(66) of the West Bengal Sales Tax Rules and submitted that from a perusal thereof it would appear that the said rule was applicable only in respect of a dealer who was liable to pay tax under sections 4 and 8(3) of the said Act and thus, turnover tax which was payable in terms of section 6B thereof was not exempted. It was submitted that the State is entitled to change its policy decision and in support of his aforementioned contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the apex Court in Arvind Industries v. State of Gujarat reported in [1995] 99 STC 333. It was further submitted that the power of the Legislature to amend the law with retrospective effect is beyond any cavil of doubt and reliance in this connection has been placed in Shantilal & Brothers v. State of Karnataka reported in [1985] 59 STC 178 (Kar). It was submitted that in view of the decision of the apex Court in Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar reported in [1984] 55 STC 1 and the decision of this Court in Century Spining Mfg. Co. v. State of West Bengal reported in [1989] 73 STC 277 (Cal), the validity of the turnover tax cannot be questioned. The learned counsel also po