The form of certificate appended to a rule is an integral part of the rule and must be read in conjunction with it. Exemptions under tax laws must be strictly interpreted in favor of the revenue, and conditions imposed by the form are valid and mandatory.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the tribunal. The facts which are necessary for the consideration of the relief sought for in the writ petition could be stated as follows:-

2. The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing of jewellery and ornaments and selling the same within the country as well as exports. The Bank of Nova Scotia had filed the revision case before the tribunal in RN No. 92 of 2018.The said bank, impleaded as a proforma respondent in this writ petition, is a registered dealer under the provisions of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003, (WBVAT) carrying on business of banking and also a reseller of bullion, gold and silver. In their return for the period 2014-2015, they claimed exemption from tax under Rule 33A of the West Bengal Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (the Rules) in respect of the sales made to the writ petitioner amounting to Rs. 18,60,65,057/-. The assessing authority of the said bank disallowed the claim for exemption on the sole ground that the purchasing dealer namely the writ petitioner did not manufacture the jewellery in the State of West Bengal but had manufactured the same at Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu state. The bank preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was dismissed by the order dated 16.11.2017. Aggrieved by such order, the bank filed a revision petition before the tribunal. The said revision petition was dismissed by order dated 06.09.2021 which has now been challenged by the writ petitioner on the ground that they are the purchasing dealer and are aggrieved by such order

3. We have heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Agarwal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. T.M. Siddique and Mr. Debasish Ghosh learned advocates for the respondent state.

4. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that they had purchased gold from the bank of Nova Scotia by furnishing declarations under Section 33A (1) (a) of the VAT Act to enable the bank to claim exemption from payment of value added tax. It is submitted that in terms of the relevant rule, the bank is entitled to sell gold to a registered dealer in West Bengal for use in the manufacture of jewellery to be exported outside India. In terms of Rule 33A (3), a certificate in the form appended to the rule has to be issued by the purchasing dealer, the petitioner. It is submitted that the form contained stipulations that the goods purchased are for the purpose of use in the manufacture of jewellery in West Bengal to be exported out of India and not intended to be disposed of otherwise. The learned advocate would submit that in Rule 33A there is no condition that the gold so purchased should be used for manufacture of jewellery in West Bengal and therefore the form of certificate is contrary to the rule. The petitioner had undertaken the manufacture of jewellery in Coimbatore and thereafter exported the same which has not been disputed by the department and therefore the petitioner has not disposed of the manufactured jewellery in any other manner. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the tribunal in the case of Nayara Energy Limited Versus Senior Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, LTU in Case No. R.N. 1399 2018 dated 13.11.2020 wherein it was held that the form appended to the rules has to be in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. It is submitted that initially the challenge made by the respondent bank was heard by the two member bench of the Tribunal which had agreed with the submissions made by the state and taking note of the facts that the decision of the tribunal in Nayara Energy Limited was a three member bench, the case of the respondent bank was referred to a three member bench and that is as to how the matter was dealt with and the impugned order came to be passed. It is submitted that the sole reason on which the case of the respondent bank was not accepted b