JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J. In this application, the petitioners had initially prayed for a declaration that the provisions of Rule 4 of the Bihar Sales Tax Supplementary (Deferment of Tax) Rules, 1990 have no application to the case of the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter filed an application for amendment of the writ application, whereby they have also prayed for quashing the order dated 30.4.1991, as contained in Annexure-9 thereto. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. The petitioners nave set up a coke plant in the district of Dhanbad. The petitioners no. 1 was incorporated and registered as a Company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 in the year 1989, as it appears from Annexure-1 to the writ application. 4. According to the petitioners, the petitioner no. 1 has gone into commercial production on and from 5.3.1990. The Petitioner no. 1 later on applied and was granted a certificate of registration as a small scale industrial unit by the Director of Industries an 31.5.1990. The said certificate is contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application. 5. The petitioner no. 1 is also registered under the Bihar Finance Act and the Central Sales Tax. The petitioner no. 1 has also been granted a certificate of exemption for industries, which is contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application. 6. It appears that the State of Bihar adopted a Resolution on 6th December, 1989 (Annexure-6), whereby and whereunder, sale tax incentive scheme for rapid industrial growth of Bihar was to be implemented. In terms of the aforementioned Resolution, the incentives were available to the new industrial units which started commercial production from 1st April, 1985 or thereafter for a period of five years from the date of commencement of production. 7. From a perusal of the orders dated 26.7.1990 as contained in Annexures-7 and 7/1 to the writ application, it appears that the authorities of the Commercial Taxes department, upon consideration of all the aspects of the matter held that the petitioner no. 1 was entitled to the benefit of the said scheme for a period of five years from the date of commencement of its production i.e. till 5.3.1995. 8. 1 was entitled to the benefit of the said scheme for a period of five years from the date of commencement of its production i.e. till 5.3.1995. 8. The State, however, issued a notification on 11.2.1991 whereby and whereunder it purported to have framed a Rule in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Sub-Section (1) of Section 58 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 known as the Bihar Sale Tax Supplementary (Deferment of Tax) Rule, 1990. The copy of the said notification is contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application. The said Rule was given a retrospective effect with effect from 30th January, 1990. 9. In terms of Rule 4 of the aforementioned Rules, the benefit of deferred payment of tax was directed to be not available, inter alia, to coal and coke manufacturing units, which reads as follows :- "Non eligibility for deferred payment of Tax.-The benefit of deferred payment of tax shall not be available to- (i)…………… (ii)………….. (1)………….. (6)…………. (2)…………. (7)………… (3)…………. (8)…………. (4)…………. (9)…………. (5)…………. (10)……….. (11) Coal and Coke Manufacturing units" 10. Thereafter, by reason of the impugned order dated 30th April, 1991, as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ application, the petitioner had been directed to show cause as to why a penalty proceedings should not be initiated against them as they had not deposited the admitted amount of sale tax. 11. In this case no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and thus the statements made in the writ application have got to be accepted as correct. 12. Mr. A.K. Sahani, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that as by reason of the orders dated 26.7.1990, as contained in Annexures-7 and 7/1 to the writ application, it has been held by the authorities of the Commercial Taxes Department that the petitioner no. 1 was entitled to the benefit of the scheme for sales tax incentives, as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application and the same either by reason of the impugned Rules, which is contained in Annexure-8 thereto or by reason of the order dated 30th April 1991, could not have been taken away. The learned counsel appears to be correct. 13. The learned counsel appears to be correct. 13. From a perusal of Rule 4 of the said Rules (Annexure-4), it is evident that non-eligibility for deferred payment of tax, inter alia, in relation to coke manufacturing units was sought to be introduced with a prospective effect and not with a retrospective effect. There is nothing in the entire Rules to show that by reason thereof a vested right is sought to be taken away. 14. In terms of the provisions contained in Sub-Section (1) of Section 58 of the Bihar Finance Act, the State has not been conferred with any power to frame any rule which can be given retrospective effect so as to take away the vested right of a person. 15. In terms of Annexure-6 to the writ application, the petitioner derived a legal right which had also been recognised by the competent authorities of the Commercial Takes Department, as is evident from Annexures-7 and 7/1 thereto. 16. By reason of the impugned Rules as contained in Annexure-8, such a right of the petitioner could not have been taken away. 17. In this view of the matter, the show cause notice issued as against the petitioner and as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ application cannot be sustained. 18. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned order as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ application is quashed. 19. The respondents are hereby directed to act pursuant to Annexures-7 and 7/1 and allow the petitioner to obtain the benefit of the incentives scheme as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application up to 5.3.1995. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no older as to costs.