JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was delivered by U. L. BHAT, C.J. - Petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing and processing of coal into coke. Petitioner is a dealer registered under the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956 (for short "the Act') and under section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short "the Central Act"). Sales by the Petitioner would be liable for sales tax under the Act. The Act was amended by the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concessions) Act, 1986, that is Assam Act 1 of 1987, for short "the 1987 Act". By one of the amendments section 3B was introduced in the Act. This provision enables the State Government by notification to grant exemption to dealers in respect of sales of goods produced by the dealer in any new industrial unit for a period of five years from the date of commencement of the production in the unit. The State Government published Notification No. FTX. 28177/Pt.II/40 in the Assam Gazette, Extraordinary dated August 1, 1988, directing that no dealer shall be liable to pay tax under the Act in respect of sales of goods produced by him in any new industrial unit in Assam for a period of five years from the date of commencement of production in the unit subject to the conditions mentioned therein. Petitioner took the stand that exemption from sales tax by virtue of the above notification under section 3B of the Act is general in nature. Petitioner further contended that by virtue of section 8(2-A) of the Central Act, he is entitled to exemption under the Central Act also. The assessment was completed on the basis that the petitioner was exempted under the Central Act but the Assistant Commissioner in suo motu revision took the view that the exemption is not available and directed assessment to be made afresh. That order is under challenge in another writ petition. While so, for the succeeding period the Superintendent of Taxes issued notice to the petitioner that he is not entitled to exemption. That notice is now challenged. 2. There is no dispute that the petitioner manufactures coke using coal as a raw material and sells the finished products. It is also admitted that coke is produced in a new industrial unit and during the period of exemption covered by the notification referred to above. That notice is now challenged. 2. There is no dispute that the petitioner manufactures coke using coal as a raw material and sells the finished products. It is also admitted that coke is produced in a new industrial unit and during the period of exemption covered by the notification referred to above. There is no dispute that the petitioner is entitled to such exemption. The short question is whether this exemption will enable him to obtain exemption under section 8(2-A) of the Central Act. 3. Section 8(2-A) of the Central Act reads thus : "8. ....... (2-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1-A) of section 6 or in sub-section (1) or clause (b) of sub-section (2) of this section, the tax payable under this Act by a dealer on his turnover in so far as the turnover or any part thereof relates to the sale of any goods, the sale or, as the case may be, the Purchase of which is, under the sales tax law of the appropriate State, exempt from tax generally or subject to tax generally at a rate which is lower than four per cent (whether called a tax or fee or by any other name), shall be nil or, as the Case may be, shall be calculated at the lower rate. Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section a sale or purchase of any goods shall not be deemed to be exempt from tax generally under the sales tax law of the appropriate State if under that law the sale or purchase of such goods is exempt only in specified circumstances or under specified conditions or the tax is levied on the sale or purchase of such goods at specified stages or otherwise than with reference to the turnover of the goods." 4. According to the learned Government Advocate exemption in this case is not exemption from "tax generally" and it is exemption only "in specified circumstances or under specified conditions" and therefore section 8(2-A) is not attracted. According to the learned Government Advocate exemption in this case is not exemption from "tax generally" and it is exemption only "in specified circumstances or under specified conditions" and therefore section 8(2-A) is not attracted. In Muli Bash Hasta Silpa Samabaya Society Ltd. v. State of Assam (1992) 1 GLR 46 corresponding to (1992) 1 GCJ 86, this Court held that sale of goods produced by a society of khadi and village industries which is entitled to exemption under the State Act is also entitled to exemption under the Central Act relying on various decisions of the Supreme Court referred to in paragraph 11 of the judgment. Our attention is also invited to a later decision of the Supreme Court in Pine Chemicals Ltd. v. Assessing Authority [1992] 85 STC 432; (1992) 2 SCC 683 . The provisions of section 8(2-A) have to be read in the light of the provisions in section 3B of the State Act and notification. It is not general exemption as such but exemption from tax generally. If the exemption is only in specified circumstances or under specified conditions, it will not fall under the category of exemption from tax generally. If the exemption is not in specified circumstances or not under specified conditions, it will he a case of exemption from tax generally. 5. The notification of the exemption in the instant case was issued under section 3B of the Act. This provision contemplates exemption for a dealer in respect of sales of goods produced by him in new industrial unit for a period of five years. Neither the notification nor section 3B of the Act makes the exemption depend upon any particular circumstances or specific condition. The goods produced in all industrial units are not exempt; goods produced only in new industrial units during the particular time are exempt. So far as those goods are concerned, the exemption is total. We, therefore, agree with the contention of the petitioner that this is a case where the sale of goods is exempt from tax generally. He is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of section 8(2-A) of the Central Act. 6. We, therefore, quash annexure IV order dated May 21, 1993. The writ petition is allowed but in the circumstances without costs. Writ petition allowed.