JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by M. B. SHAH, J. - In this reference under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Sales Tax Act") the following three questions are referred for our decision : (1) Whether, the Tribunal is competent to interpret the Government Resolution dated March 16, 1978, which gave only a relief and which was not issued under any provisions of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, and the Rules framed thereunder ? (2) If point No. (1) is found in the affirmative, whether the Tribunal was right in law in extending the benefits of remission of interest on the postponed dues from the date of Government Resolution dated March 16, 1978 ? (3) If the point No. (1) is found in the affirmative, whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Government Resolution dated March 16, 1978, did not grant postponement of sales tax dues from the date of filing of the returns by the assessee but only from March 16, 1978 ? For appreciating the contentions raised in this reference, it would be necessary to refer to the short facts of the case. The opponent, M/s. Mit-N-Mir Private Limited, submitted its sales tax returns for the period from January 1, 1976 to December 31, 1976 and for the period from January 1, 1977 to December 31, 1977. Sales tax assessment orders were passed for the period from January 1, 1976 to December 31, 1976 on September 5, 1980 and for the period from January 1, 1977 to December 31, 1977, on March 10, 1981, by the Sales Tax Officer, Surat. According to the said orders, Rs. 26,453.40 were found due as a tax for the period from January 1, 1976 to December 31, 1976 and as the tax was not paid as per the returns he levied interest under section 47(4A) of the Sales Tax Act which was calculated at Rs. 31,585 up to September 5, 1980. Similarly, for the period from January 1, 1977 to December 31, 1977, interest of Rs. 27,126 was levied for the tax due. Against those orders, the opponent preferred two appeals before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax who dismissed those appeals. Against the orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, the opponent preferred Second Appeals Nos. 98/81 and 36/82 before the Tribunal. 27,126 was levied for the tax due. Against those orders, the opponent preferred two appeals before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax who dismissed those appeals. Against the orders of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, the opponent preferred Second Appeals Nos. 98/81 and 36/82 before the Tribunal. During the pendency of the aforesaid second appeals before the Tribunal, the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax passed two separate orders on February 12, 1983, suo motu revising the orders passed in appeal by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax on the basis of the Government Resolution dated March 16, 1978. He held that no interest should have been levied for the moratorium period from September 14, 1978 to the date of the assessment order, i.e., up to September 5, 1980, in respect of the year 1976 and up to March 11, 1981, in respect of the year 1977. He, therefore, remitted the interest for the said periods. In the result, he modified the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and the amount of interest was reduced by Rs. 18,242 in respect of the year 1976 and by Rs. 21,476.36 in respect of the year 1977. In the background of the aforesaid facts, for deciding the questions referred by the Tribunal, it would be necessary to refer to the Government Resolution dated March 16, 1978. The aforesaid resolution is issued by the State Government to give relief to the sick units in payment of sales tax dues by way of postponement of its recovery. The relevant paragraphs are as under : "4. Government is accordingly pleased to pass the following orders : (1) The recovery of the outstanding dues of sales tax against a sick unit other than the unit run by technician under the small-scale industrial sector, as per the assessments made up to March 31, 1978 or as per return due up to March 31, 1978, which subsequently comes out as assessed dues shall be postponed for a period of two years, from the date of assessment order, on the recommendation of the Industries Commissioner, Gujarat State. (2) The recovery of the outstanding dues of sales tax against a sick unit run by the technician in the small-scale sector, as per the assessments made up to March 31, 1978 or as per returns due up to March 31, 1978, which subsequently comes out as assessed dues shall be postponed for a period of three years, from the date of assessment order, on the recommendation of the Industries Commissioner, Gujarat State. (3) If it is considered to postpone the recovery period further in the case of any unit the period of postponement shall be extended up to five years as an exceptional case, by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, on the recommendation of jointly by the Industries Commissioner, Gujarat State, and the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Gujarat State. (4) Any unit getting benefits of moratorium as per the above order shall discharge their liability relating to sales tax arising hereafter from April 1, 1978. (5) Government is pleased to authorise the Committee of the Industries Commissioner and the Commissioner of Sales Tax to decide the number of annual instalments for recovering the postponed amount after the period of postponement is over. (6) No interest on the amount of sales tax, the recovery of which is postponed shall be levied for the period during which the postponement is granted to the unit." The object and purpose of the aforesaid resolution is to give benefits to the sick units at the relevant time. For giving benefits, classification is made between the sick unit run by the technician and the unit run by the non-technician. For the sick unit run by the technician recovery of the outstanding dues of sales tax is postponed for a period of three years. For the unit run by the non-technician, recovery of the outstanding dues of sales tax is postponed for a period of two years. This period of two years or three years can be extended to five years by the Commissioner of Sales Tax on the joint recommendation by the Industries Commissioner, Gujarat State, and the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Gujarat State. For getting benefit under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) it is a condition precedent that there should be recommendation of the Industries Commissioner, Gujarat State. For getting benefit under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) it is a condition precedent that there should be recommendation of the Industries Commissioner, Gujarat State. Sub-paragraph (4) further provides that any unit getting benefits of moratorium as per the above order is required to discharge its liability relating to sales tax arising after April 1, 1978. With regard to paragraph 5 of this resolution, we are not concerned with it and, therefore, we are not dealing with it. Paragraph 6 specifically provides that no interest on the amount of sales tax, the recovery of which is postponed, shall be levied for the period during which the postponement is granted to the unit. Then, the next question which would require consideration is, which would be the relevant date for giving benefit of the resolution - whether it should be March 16, 1978 or March 31, 1978 or the date of the assessment order which may be passed after March 31, 1978 for the returns which were submitted prior to March 31, 1978. It should be noted that, with regard to the relevant date, sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) are not happily worded. In the present case, as we are dealing with the case of technicians we would deal with sub-paragraph (2). For proper interpretation, we would divide sub-paragraph (2) into two parts as under : (1) The recovery of the outstanding dues of sales tax against a sick unit run by the technician in the small-scale sector, as per assessment made up to March 31, 1978, shall be postponed for a period of three years from the date of assessment order. (2) The recovery of the outstanding dues of sales tax against a sick unit run by the technician in the small-scale sector, as per returns due up to March 31, 1978, which subsequently comes out as assessed dues, shall be postponed for a period of three years. With regard to the first part, there is no difficulty in holding that recovery of outstanding dues of sales tax as per the assessments made up to March 31, 1978, shall be postponed for a period of three years from the date of assessment order. With regard to the first part, there is no difficulty in holding that recovery of outstanding dues of sales tax as per the assessments made up to March 31, 1978, shall be postponed for a period of three years from the date of assessment order. However, with regard to the second part, whether the recovery of outstanding dues of sales tax as per the returns due up to March 31, 1978, which subsequently comes up as assessment dues, shall be postponed for a period of three years from March 31, 1978 or from the date of the assessment orders which are subsequently passed after March 31, 1978. In our view, for the second part also, the reasonable interpretation would be that, the cut-off date is March 31, 1978. It is in conformity with the object and purpose of passing the aforesaid resolution. The object of the resolution is to give benefit to the sick units at the relevant time, i.e., in 1978. By the resolution, recovery of sales tax is postponed and that on the sales tax dues interest is not to be recovered for the period during which sales tax recovery is postponed. That object and purpose is mentioned in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the resolution. The object is to give assistance to the closed or sick small-scale industrial units either to revive them or to make them economically viable. For that purpose, the Government has constituted a State level co-ordination committee under the chairmanship of the Industries Commissioner, Gujarat State by the Government Resolution dated July 3, 1976. The committee examined the problems of the sick units and the closed units and suggested remedial action for assisting them. In paragraph 3 of the said Resolution the relevant part from the speech of the Finance Minister on budget estimates for the year 1978-79 is quoted. As per the said speech, at the relevant time there were 2,000 sick units in the small-scale sector. In paragraph 3 of the said Resolution the relevant part from the speech of the Finance Minister on budget estimates for the year 1978-79 is quoted. As per the said speech, at the relevant time there were 2,000 sick units in the small-scale sector. It is specifically stated as under : "In order that the State Government may also play its role in this regard, it has been decided by the Government that if the sick unit can be made viable and the credit institution undertakes to sanction required fund to make it viable and if after scrutiny the Industries Commissioner recommends on the merits of each case, the recovery of outstanding dues of sales tax and electricity duty as on March 31, 1978, will be postponed for a period of two years. Units run by technician will qualify for postponement for a period of 3 years. In exceptional case, this period may be increased up to five years jointly by the Industries Commissioner and the Commissioner of Sales Tax." From the aforesaid speech it is clear that the recovery of outstanding dues of sales tax and electricity duty at the relevant time, that is, as on March 31, 1978, was to be postponed for a period of two years or three years in case the unit is run by the technicians. It also provides that in exceptional case the aforesaid period can be extended up to five years. Therefore, the basis of issuing the resolution for giving benefit was to see that the recovery of the outstanding dues of the sales tax as on March 31, 1978, was to be postponed for a period of three years for the unit run by the technician. To achieve that object, provision is made in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the resolution. Therefore, in our view, the relevant date for the second part for which no assessment orders are passed prior to March 31, 1978, would be March 31, 1978. At the relevant time, i.e., in February/March. 1978, there were 2,000 sick units and to give them benefit, the resolution was passed. If the relevant date is considered as the date when the assessment orders are passed, say in 1981 or 1982, then the object of the resolution for giving benefit to the sick units would not be achieved because at that time these units may or may not be sick. If the relevant date is considered as the date when the assessment orders are passed, say in 1981 or 1982, then the object of the resolution for giving benefit to the sick units would not be achieved because at that time these units may or may not be sick. Therefore, in our view, it would be reasonable to hold that the recovery of the outstanding dues of sales tax as per returns due up to March 31, 1978, for which assessment orders are passed subsequently shall be postponed for a period of three years from March 31, 1978. For the said period of moratorium no interest on the amount of sales tax due is to be levied as per paragraph 6. Re : Question No. 1 : The question is whether the Tribunal is competent to interpret the Government Resolution which gave only a relief to the sick units and whether it is issued under provisions of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 and the Rules framed thereunder. In our view, this question is framed as if the Government has issued the resolution de hers the statutory provisions of the Sales Tax Act. It seems that the attention of the Tribunal was not drawn to section 55 of the Sales Tax Act. Section 55 of the Sales Tax Act specifically provides that subject to such conditions as it may impose, the State Government may, if it is necessary so to do in the public interest or to redress an inequitable situation, remit, by an order either generally or specially, the whole or any part of the taxes payable in respect of any period by any dealer or a class of dealers or of any specified class of sales or specified sales or purchases. In the present case, by the resolution the Government has postponed the recovery of sales tax dues as on March 31, 1978 and has remitted the interest for a period of moratorium granted under the said Resolution. Therefore, it would be difficult to hold that the said Resolution is issued de hers any statutory provision of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act. As the resolution is issued under the provisions of the Act, the Tribunal was competent to interpret it and give relief in accordance with the provisions of the resolution. Therefore, it would be difficult to hold that the said Resolution is issued de hers any statutory provision of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act. As the resolution is issued under the provisions of the Act, the Tribunal was competent to interpret it and give relief in accordance with the provisions of the resolution. Re : Question No. 2 : Regarding this question also, in view of the interpretation which we have given above, it should be held that the relevant date for giving benefit of the resolution is March 31, 1978 with regard to the sales tax dues or the returns submitted prior to March 31, 1978, for which assessment orders are passed subsequently. It cannot be said that the relevant date would be the date on which the Sales Tax Commissioner has recommended for grant of benefits of the resolution. Once it is held that the opponent was entitled to get the benefit of the said resolution and that there are recommendations by the Joint Director of Industries, Ahmedabad, and the Sales Tax Commissioner, then the opponent is entitled to get the benefit of the resolution from March 31, 1978. In the letter dated September 14, 1978, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, it is specifically mentioned that the opponent was a sick unit and the recovery of the sales tax dues as per the assessment/returns be postponed for a period of three years as per the recommendation of the Industries Commissioner. The Tribunal was right in holding that the date on which the office of the Commissioner wrote a letter to the Sales Tax Officer to grant necessary relief would not be relevant. However, the Tribunal has erred in holding that the opponent was entitled to the remission of interest on the postponed dues from March 16, 1978. The Tribunal ought to have granted benefit of remission of interest from March 31, 1978 for a period of three years, i.e., up to March 31, 1981. In this view of the matter, we answer question No. 2 accordingly. That is partly in negative and partly in affirmative. In view of the aforesaid interpretation of resolution, learned counsel Mr. Kaji appearing on behalf of the opponent has not pressed question No. (3). In this view of the matter, we answer question No. 2 accordingly. That is partly in negative and partly in affirmative. In view of the aforesaid interpretation of resolution, learned counsel Mr. Kaji appearing on behalf of the opponent has not pressed question No. (3). It is held that Government Resolution dated March 16, 1978, did grant postponement of recovery of sales tax dues from March 31, 1978, and did not grant postponement of sales tax dues from the date of filing of the returns by the assessee. In the result, as regards question No. (1), it is answered in the affirmative. We hold that the Tribunal was competent to interpret the Government Resolution dated March 16, 1978, which gave relief to the sick units and that the said resolution is passed as per the provisions of section 55 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act. With regard to question No. (2), we hold that the Tribunal was right in law to extend the benefit of remission of interest on the postponed dues but at the same time the relevant date would be March 31, 1978 and not March 16, 1978. In view of our answer to question No. (1), question No. (3) is required to be answered in the affirmative to the extent that recovery of sales tax dues against the opponent and interest thereon is not required to be postponed from the date of filing of the return but it is required to be postponed from March 31, 1978. In other words, the Government Resolution dated March 16, 1978 had granted postponement of recovery of sales tax dues from March 31, 1978 and did not grant postponement of sales tax dues from the date of filing of the returns by the assessee nor from March 16, 1978. Reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Reference answered accordingly.