Order In substance the relief that the petitioner seeks is a writ of certiorari for quashing the notice dated 17.8.90, 27.11.90 and 4.12.90 (Annexures 8, 10 and 11) issued by the Respondent no. 4 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why proceedings under Sections 16(8)/16(9) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, be not initiated against it for non-payment of the admitted tax. 2. Without going into the detailed fact of the case all that we say is that according to the petitioner, which is an industry, having its registered office at Calcutta, has established a factory at Jagdishpur in the district of Deoghar for manufacturing pre-stressed Monoblock concrete railway sleepers. Further is stated that its production started in April, 1989, and subsequently the capacity of the factory was enhanced by more than 50%. On this ground the petitioner seeks relief for deferment in payment of sales tax as per resolution of the State Government dated 6th September, 1989 (Annexure-4). 3. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. Learned Advocate General, at our request, appeared in this Case and has contested the claim of the petitioner. He submits that the State Government fully stands by the resolution dated 6th September 1989 (Annexure-4). His argument further is that in order to implement different provisions made in the Resolution, Bihar Finance Act has been amended by the Bihar Taxation Laws (Amendment and. Validation) Act 1990. By Section 9 of this Amending Act, Section 23-A has been inserted in the Principal Act which reads as under :- "21-A. Deferred Payment of tax by Industrial Units.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Part I of the Act the State Government if satisfied that it is expedient in the interest of the Industrial growth of the State to do so may permit subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed any class or description of registered dealer who are running industrial units in the State of Bihar and who have been granted certificate of eligibility for the purpose by a prescribed authority to defer the payment of tax payable under Section 16 and/or Section 25 of the Act for a maximum period of 5 or 7 years as the case may be and the deferred payment shall be recoverable in the manner prescribed. (2) In case of violation of sub-section (1) and the Rules made under this Act by the registered dealer the provision of Part I of the Act for recovery, realisation and penalty shall apply mutatis mutandis. A perusal of this newly inserted Section clearly shows that the State Government has been empowered to defer payment of tax payable under Section 16 and/or Section 25 of the Act for a maximum period of 5-7 years as the case may be. This insertion in the Act has to be done to give legal shape to the provisions made in the Resolution (Annexure-4). The newly inserted Section referred to above, empowers the State Government to prescribe the manner in which deferment of payment of tax has to be done. In exercise of this power read with Section 58 of the Bihar Finance Act 1981, which is the rule making power a Rule known as "The Bihar Sales Tax Supplementary (Deferment of Tax) Rules, 1990 has been made and notified in the official gazette dated 11th February, 1991. We need not go into the different provisions of this Rule but it may be desirable to mention that a complete scheme has been framed thereunder. The only relevant rule that needs special mention is Rule-5, which runs as follows:- 5. Period of Deferred Payment to Tax-The State Government may permit an industrial unit to defer the payment of tax payable under the Act for a period of 5 years from the date of commencement of commercial production : Provided that the following industrial units may be entitled to deferment for a period of 7 years- (a) industrial unit located in the Districts declared by the Government of India from time to time as 'No Industry District; (b) industrial units located in the Growth Centres declared by the Government of India with the fixed capital investment of Rupees 10 Lakhs or more; (c) industrial units declared as pioneer unit by the Government of Bihar; and (d) industrial units set up by non-resident Indians with a minimum fixed capital investment of Rupees one crore. 4. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that this rule does not in any way take away the right conferred on an industrial unit under Annexure-4. 4. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that this rule does not in any way take away the right conferred on an industrial unit under Annexure-4. Therefore, the petitioner in this case, instead of coming to this Court should have shown cause to the authorities concerned drawing their attention to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 5. Be that as it may, now after hearing both sides, and having gone through the provisions contained in newly inserted Section 23-A of the Act and the Supplementary Rules, we find that there are elaborate provisions for entertainment of 'the claim in question. Rule 7 of the Supplementary Rules provides that an industrial unit eligible for the claim of deferred payment of tax shall apply for and obtain a certificate of eligibility in accordance with the procedure laid down in Annexure-1 of the Supplementary Rule. Annexure-1 of the Supplementary Rules sets out the details with regard to the application and its disposal by the competent authority. It also contemplates a time schedule for disposal of application filed by the industrial unit in this regard. 6. Keeping in view the above provisions, we direct that the petitioner should file an application in accordance with the aforesaid provisions within two weeks from today and if such an application is filed the same should be disposed of by the concerned authority within the time schedule laid down under Annexure-1 to the Supplementary Rules. 7. We also direct that till the decision of the authority concerned on the application of the petitioner, no coercive step should be taken for realisation of admitted tax. 8. Further the apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner may not be able to get statutory forms. We see no valid justification for such apprehension. We are sure that forms will be supplied to the petitioner in accordance with law. 9. This application thus stands disposed of. 10. Let a copy of this order be given to Mr. N.K. Singh, J.C. to learned A.A.G.I.