JUDGMENT G. T. NANAVATI, J. - The petitioner is a manufacturer of glazed tiles and sanitary wares, and is having its factory situated in Vadodara district. Between 15th March, 1982 and 29th October, 1983, the petitioner invested about Rs. 1.74 crore and set up a new plant for manufacturing glazed tiles and sanitary wares. On October 29, 1983 it commenced commercial production. It is the case of the petitioner that in response to the incentives schemes dated December 22, 1977 and August 27, 1980, it had set up a new industrial unit at Padra, which is one of the specified growth centres. As the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the said Schemes, it opted for the benefit of sales tax deferment and applied to the Industries Commissioner for an eligibility certificate. The Industries Commissioner, on being satisfied that the industrial unit set up by the petitioner was a new industrial unit; that it was located in one of the "C" grade growth centres, viz., Padra, and that it had started commercial production from October 29, 1983, granted such a certificate on February 27, 1984, and also specified the amount of sales tax deferment available to the petitioner. It was subsequently amended in October, 1984, so as to read that sales tax deferment available to the petitioner was up to Rs. 25 lacs. After obtaining this certificate, the petitioner applied to the sales tax authorities for granting certificate of sales tax deferment. The Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner rejected the petitioner's request on the ground that new industries established within the prohibited distance of 24 kms. from the limits of Baroda Municipal Corporation were not entitled to the benefit of sales tax deferment scheme and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to get such a certificate. The case of the petitioner is that in spite of the prohibition with respect to distance, Padra was mentioned as one of the growth centres in annexure II to the resolution dated December 22, 1977 and it had continued to remain as specified growth centre even under resolution dated August 27, 1980. Even the resolution dated March 18, 1982 prescribing the procedure and conditions for obtaining sales tax deferment benefit mentions Padra as one of the specified growth centres. Even the resolution dated March 18, 1982 prescribing the procedure and conditions for obtaining sales tax deferment benefit mentions Padra as one of the specified growth centres. Thus, the respondents had held out a clear promise to entrepreneurs like the petitioner that if they set up new industrial units at Padra, they would be entitled to the benefit of cash subsidy and sales tax incentives schemes and, therefore, it is now not open to the respondents to back out of the said promise on the ground that Padra is situated within the prohibited distance. It is also the petitioner's case that on September 15, 1978 the Government had passed a resolution amending the 1977 Incentives Scheme in view of the various representations made to the Government to make industrial units situated within banned distance eligible for incentives available under the 1977 Scheme. By that resolution some relaxation was made in respect of cash subsidy to SSI units set up in some developing areas and all the growth centres. As regards incentives, relaxation was made in respect of the existing growth centres falling within banned distance on fulfilment of certain conditions. Thus, on and from September 15, 1978, the petitioner became entitled to incentives at half the scale than what was available for corresponding growth centres outside the banned distance. Again, on March 31, 1981, the Government made a further relaxation by making such new industrial units eligible for full incentives. For that reason also, the sales tax authorities ought to have granted the certificate which the petitioner had applied for and in not doing so, they have acted illegally. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the order dated April 16, 1985 passed by the Assistant Sales Tax Commissioner, rejecting the petitioner's application for certificate of sales tax deferment, and the general orders passed by the Sales Tax Commissioner on April 8, 1985 declaring that the sales tax deferment benefit was not available to new industries established after June 1, 1980 in prohibited area be quashed and set aside and the third and fourth respondents be directed to issue deferment certificate to the petitioner up to an upper limit of Rs. 50 lacs for the period between October 20, 1983 and October, 19, 1990. 50 lacs for the period between October 20, 1983 and October, 19, 1990. What is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even while stating that incentives will not be applicable to industrial units falling in the areas within 24 kms. from the municipal limits of Baroda, the Government, in its Resolution No. MSC-1076-7637(1)-J dated December 22, 1977, had mentioned Padra as one of the Growth Centres. The scheme was applicable to new industrial units in developing areas which included zones mentioned in annexure I and growth centres mentioned in annexure II to the said resolution. So far as Resolution No. MSC-1076-7637(2)-J is concerned, therein also Padra is mentioned as one of the growth centres even though one of the conditions mentioned in the said resolution is that the industrial units should be established in areas beyond 24 kms. from the municipal limits of Ahmedabad and Baroda. The learned counsel also drew our attention to the resolution dated March 18, 1982 and submitted that in that resolution also Padra is mentioned as one of the Growth Centres. He submitted that the sales tax deferment benefit was to be computed on the basis of Table - II contained in the said resolution, depending upon the grade of growth centres as listed in annexure I to that resolution. Annexure I gives details of growth centres and their grade, which are in areas beyond the distance limit of 24 kms. from municipal limits of the cities of Ahmedabad and Baroda and 10 kms. from the municipal limits of Surat, Bhavnagar, Rajkot and Jamnagar. He submitted that if no benefit was to be available to growth centres situated within 24 kms. from the municipal limits of Vadodara then Padra would not have been mentioned at all in the list of growth centres. Even though, admittedly, Padra was situated within a distance of 24 kms. the Government intended that the benefit of sales tax incentives scheme should be made available to the industrial units set up at that place also and it was for that reason that Padra was mentioned as one of the growth centres in annexure I to the said resolution. Even though, admittedly, Padra was situated within a distance of 24 kms. the Government intended that the benefit of sales tax incentives scheme should be made available to the industrial units set up at that place also and it was for that reason that Padra was mentioned as one of the growth centres in annexure I to the said resolution. He also submitted that to bring out this intention of the Government, all the three resolutions should be read harmoniously and on true construction thereof, it should be held that in respect of specified growth centres the limits of 24 kms. and 10 kms. were not applicable. He submitted that that was the understanding of the petitioner and even the Assistant Commissioner of Industries, who granted the eligibility certificate, also understood the assurance given by the Government in that manner. The Government having given such an assurance should not now be permitted to go back upon such assurance as the principle of promissory estoppel would clearly apply to the facts of the case. In our opinion, there is no substance in these contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. On December 22, 1977, the Government had passed two resolutions bearing Nos. MSC-1076-7637(1)-J and MSC-1076-7637(2)-J. By the first resolution, the Government evolved a scheme called "State Cash Subsidy Scheme for Industries". It came into effect from November 1, 1977 and was to remain in force for a period of five years. Though we are not directly concerned with that scheme, as the petitioner did not opt for cash subsidy, it becomes necessary to refer to the same as both the schemes, viz., State Cash Subsidy Scheme and Sales Tax Incentives Scheme were made applicable on the same day and offered different types of benefits to new industrial units set up in developing areas. After providing that the scheme was applicable to new industrial units in developing areas, it was further stated in sub-clause (iii) of clause 6 that those incentives would, however, not be applicable to industrial units located in towns having a population of more than one lac on the basis of 1971 census, or falling in areas within 24 kms. of the municipal limits of Ahmedabad and Baroda and 10 kms. from the municipal limits of Surat, Rajkot, Bhavnagar and Jamnagar. of the municipal limits of Ahmedabad and Baroda and 10 kms. from the municipal limits of Surat, Rajkot, Bhavnagar and Jamnagar. It was stated in annexure I of the said resolution that the developing areas would consist of zones and growth centres as defined in the said annexure. Zone II consisted of districts of Panchmahals, Bharuch and Surendranagar; Zone II consisted of district of Kutch, Junagadh, Amreli, Bhavnagar, Banaskantha, Sabarkantha and Mehsana and Zone III consisted of backward talukas identified by the Hathi Committee and were not covered by Zones I and II. Annexure II specified the growth centres. It has become necessary to refer to these details as they would determine the nature of assurance given by the Government and have some bearing on the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner based upon the resolutions dated September 15, 1978 and March 31, 1981. By the second resolution of 1977, the Government provided for exemption from payment of sales tax and interest-free sales tax loan. While providing for exemption from sales tax, it was clearly stated in that resolution that the scheme applied to all new small-scale industrial units commissioned on or after November 1, 1977 in areas beyond 24 kms. from the municipal limits of Ahmedabad and Baroda and 10 kms. from the municipal limits of Surat, Rajkot, Bhavnagar and Jamnagar and also not located in towns, cities or villages having a population of more than 1 lac on the basis of 1971 census. While making a provision for interest-free sales tax loan, the Government in clause 8 of that resolution provided that all industrial units, i.e., new medium and large scale industrial units should have been established in areas beyond 24 kms. from the municipal limits of Ahmedabad and Baroda and 10 kms. from the municipal limits of Surat, Rajkot, Bhavnagar and Jamnagar. When we turn to the resolution dated August 27, 1980, whereby the Government announced the new sales tax incentives scheme consisting of sales tax deferment incentives, we find that in clause 3 thereof, the Government provided that the areas of applicability and the list of growth centres, etc., would remain as per old sales tax incentives scheme. It is for that reason that in Table A and Table B, we find a reference to non-specified growth centres situated beyond the prohibited limits. It is for that reason that in Table A and Table B, we find a reference to non-specified growth centres situated beyond the prohibited limits. It is on the basis of these provisions contained in the 1977 and 1980 schemes that we will have to decide what was the nature of the assurance held out by the Government. Apart from what we have stated above, with respect to the three schemes, it is also pertinent to note that in clause 8 of the 1977 scheme, it has been specifically stated that for being eligible for interest-free sales tax loan scheme, the industrial unit should not have been established within the prohibited distance. It also provided for granting of eligibility certificate by the Commissioner of Industries on the basis of distance criteria. Thus, the old and the new sales tax incentives schemes were applicable only to the areas and growth centres situated beyond the prohibited areas. If the scheme itself was not applicable to the areas and growth centres situated within the prohibited distance, it cannot be said that notwithstanding the same an assurance was given by the Government that if a new industrial unit was set up in the growth centre at Padra, then it would have the benefit of sales tax deferment benefit available under the sales tax incentives schemes of 1977 and 1980. On true construction of the said resolutions, it will have to be held that only those industrial units which were located outside the prohibited distance were entitled to the benefit of sales tax deferment scheme. We cannot, therefore, accept the contention that the assurance which was held out by the Government under the said schemes was that any one who had set up a new industrial unit at the growth centre at Padra would be entitled to the sales tax incentives/benefits available under those schemes. We are of the opinion that the industrial units set up within the prohibited distance were not eligible under those schemes for any benefit under any of those three resolutions. We will now consider the second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. We are of the opinion that the industrial units set up within the prohibited distance were not eligible under those schemes for any benefit under any of those three resolutions. We will now consider the second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. It was submitted by the learned counsel that, in any case, as a result of the resolution passed by the Government on September 15, 1978, it became entitled to the benefit of the sales tax deferment scheme to the extent of 50 per cent and then as a result of the subsequent resolution dated March 31, 1981 it became entitled to the full benefit of the said schemes. By the resolution dated September 15, 1978 the Government amended both the schemes of 1977, viz., State Cash Subsidy Scheme and the sales tax incentives scheme. As regards the incentives which were not available to industrial units set up within 24 kms. distance around the municipal limits of Ahmedabad and Vadodara and 10 kms. from the municipal limits of Surat, Rajkot, Bhavnagar and Jamnagar, the Government decided that in the areas of Hathi Committee backward talukas and centrally notified backward districts falling within the banned districts around metropolitan cities, new growth centres should be located, and all small and medium scale industries set up in such growth centres should be given incentives at half the scale than what was available for corresponding growth centres outside the banned distance. The Government also decided the extent of the said benefit to the existing growth centres as notified under the Government resolution of December 22, 1977 also even though they fell within the banned distance. Those benefits were to be made available on fulfilment of certain conditions, but it is not necessary to mention them as we are not concerned with the same in this petition. On plain reading of that resolution, it will have to be held that the Government did intend to extend the benefit of the incentives scheme to small and medium scale industries even though they were set up within the prohibited or banned distance. The learned Advocate - General fairly did not dispute that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of that resolution. He, however, submitted that the resolution dated March 31, 1981 is not applicable to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner cannot get any benefit of that resolution. The learned Advocate - General fairly did not dispute that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of that resolution. He, however, submitted that the resolution dated March 31, 1981 is not applicable to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner cannot get any benefit of that resolution. On the other hand what was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that by the said resolution, the Government has now decided that although the industrial units were set up within a distance of 24 kms. and which were entitled to half the benefit are now made eligible by the said resolution for full incentives. The preamble of that resolution reads as under : "Government have introduced incentives scheme consisting of cash subsidy, sales tax exemption, interest-free sales tax loan, etc., in 1977 as amended from time to time. These incentives are available at the growth centres and backward districts/talukas but the same are not available to the areas falling within 24 kms. of municipal limits of Ahmedabad and Baroda and 10 kms. of Rajkot, Jamnagar, Bhavnagar and Surat. Several representations were received for promoting industrial activities in the really backward areas of Hathi Committee Talukas as well as centrally declared backward districts which are falling under the banned distance of Metropolitan cities and therefore are deprived of the incentives available to other backward areas under the present schemes. It was felt that some areas are really backward and have not been able to derive any benefit from the vicinity of Metropolitan cities so far. Government was therefore, considering a selective relaxation within the banned distance for such really backward areas, so that areas of Hathi Committee talukas or centrally notified districts falling within banned distance of 24 kms. and 10 kms. respectively also get benefit of induced industrial development." What is pertinent to note is that representations were received for promoting industrial activities in the really backward areas of Hathi Committee Talukas as well as centrally declared backward districts, which were falling under the banned distance of Metropolitan cities and were, therefore, deprived of the incentives available to other backward areas. In view of these representations, the Government considered the selective relaxation within the banned distance for such really backward areas so that areas of Hathi Committee Talukas or centrally notified districts falling within banned distance of 24 kms. and 10 kms. In view of these representations, the Government considered the selective relaxation within the banned distance for such really backward areas so that areas of Hathi Committee Talukas or centrally notified districts falling within banned distance of 24 kms. and 10 kms. also get benefit of induced industrial development. Thereafter the Government passed the resolution, which is as follows : "After careful consideration, Government is pleased to decide that in partial relaxation of the distance restriction around the Metropolitan cities, areas of Hathi Committee backward talukas and centrally notified backward districts (annexure I) falling within the limit of 24 kms. from municipal limits of Ahmedabad and Baroda cities and 10 kms. of Surat, Rajkot, Jamnagar and Bhavnagar cities would now be eligible for full incentives under the incentives scheme as may be in force from time to time subject to following two restrictions :- (A) Such areas should be outside the limits of the Urban development areas as determined by the respective Urban Development Authority. (B) Only those industries which are free from air and water pollution will be entitled for incentive benefits. The above relaxation will also be applicable to growth centres falling within such areas which have been made eligible hereunder. In other words, growth centres falling within Hathi Committee, Talukas or centrally backward districts but located within the banned distance but outside the UDA area will be entitled for full scale incentives (and not half as provided under Government Resolution No. MSC-1076/7637-G dated the 15th September, 1978), for Industries free from air and water pollution. ......" On careful reading of the resolution, it becomes clear that only the areas of Hathi Committee talukas and centrally declared backward districts falling within 24 kms. from the municipal limits of Ahmedabad and Vadodara were made eligible for full incentives and not all the areas falling within the limits of 24 kms. from the municipal limits of Ahmedabad and Vadodara. It is an admitted position that Vadodara is not a centrally notified backward district. So far as backward Talukas identified by Hathi Committee are concerned, they were enumerated in annexure I to the Government resolution dated December 22, 1977. Padra is not shown to be a backward taluka of Vadodara district. from the municipal limits of Ahmedabad and Vadodara. It is an admitted position that Vadodara is not a centrally notified backward district. So far as backward Talukas identified by Hathi Committee are concerned, they were enumerated in annexure I to the Government resolution dated December 22, 1977. Padra is not shown to be a backward taluka of Vadodara district. It, therefore, becomes clear that the relaxation which has been made by the Government resolution dated March 31, 1981 is not in respect of those areas falling within the limits of 24 kms. from the municipal limits of Vadodara which are not areas of Hathi Committee backward talukas. Annexure I to the said resolution dated March 31, 1981 mentions 10 backward districts and the backward talukas identified by Hathi Committee. In that annexure Vadodara is not shown as a backward district and Padra taluka of Vadodara district is not shown as a backward taluka. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner with respect to the Government resolution dated March 31, 1981 cannot be accepted. In the result, this petition is partly allowed. The impugned orders dated March 8, 1985 and April 16, 1985 are quashed and set aside and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are directed to issue deferment certificate to the petitioner upto an upper limit of Rs. 25 lacs for the period between October 20, 1983 and October 19, 1990. It is clarified that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 shall issue the deferment certificate, if all the conditions are satisfied. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Interim relief stands vacated. Petition partly allowed.