RAJESH BALIA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition raises a short issue. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture of A. C. Pipes and fittings and is also registered under the Sales tax Act, 1969. The petitioner established a new industry and commenced production in the year 1981 and it became eligible to claim the benefits under the Sales Tax Incentive scheme. The petitioner was duly issued eligibility Certificate dated 29-1-1982 for the purpose of claiming exemption from the payment of Sales Tax. It appears that after the petitioner became eligible on commencement of the production, by Notification dated 17-8-1982, the Cement base industries were included in the list of industries not eligible for claiming exemption under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme. ( 2 ) ON the basis of the Notification excluding the cement base industries from the eligibility of the benefit under The Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, the Sales Tax Officer II, bharuch, informed the petitioner that he is not entitled to claim the benefit under the said scheme and ultimately issued a Recovery Notice dated 5-12-1986 (Annexure J to the petition), demanding sales tax for the period from 1-4-1982 to 31-3-1984 with interest thereon. ( 3 ) IT may be noticed that under the Notification dated 27-8-1980 (Annexure C to the petition), under which the petitioner claimed the sales Tax Incentive, the petitioner was entitled for exemption for the period for 10-12-1981 to 9-12-1988. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court asserting that once he became entitled to claim exemption under the Saks Tax Incentive Scheme as notified by the government Resolution dated 27-7-1980, during the currency of the Scheme when the industry was eligible, subsequent putting of the industry in the list of the industries not eligible for claiming the exemption under the said Scheme, would not result in depriving the petitioner from the benefit of the Scheme for the whole period. ( 4 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the contentions of the petitioner are well founded. It is now well settled that the exemption granted under the Sales Tax Act, which the State Government was entitled to grant under the Statute, constitute a promise to the entrepreneurs to avail of the benefits on fulfilling their part of the terms of securing benefit under such Scheme. It is now well settled that the exemption granted under the Sales Tax Act, which the State Government was entitled to grant under the Statute, constitute a promise to the entrepreneurs to avail of the benefits on fulfilling their part of the terms of securing benefit under such Scheme. It is well established that though the Government is entitled to withdraw benefits under such Scheme but that authority is operative only prospectively and does not affect the rights-- already vested in the entrepreneurs to claim the benefit of the Scheme and that right remaining uneffected, for such benefits as envisaged under the Scheme, they are entitled to claim. As there is no dispute on the facts that the petitioner became entitled to claim the benefit under the aforesaid Scheme on the establishment of the new industry and the commencement of the production, before the cement base industries were included in the list of the industries not eligible for claiming the benefit under the said Scheme and infact the petitioner was issued the eligibility certificate, the petitioner is entitled to the benefits under the said scheme for the full period. ( 5 ) A reference in this connection be made to the decision in the case of M/s. Kothari oil Products Co. Rajkot vs. State of Gujarat, 23 (1) GLR 20 and Tata Metals and Strips ltd. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. , 87 SCC 447 of this Court and the decision of the supreme Court in the case of Pournami Oil Mills etc. vs. State of Kerala and another, air 1987 SC 590 . It is pertinent to note that in Pournamis case (supra), by order dated 11-4-1979 Kerala Government had granted tax exemption to the new Small Scale Units with a view to boosting industrialization for a period of five years. By second notification dated 29-9-1980, the exemption was withdrawn. The precise question raised before the supreme Court was whether the industries which were established prior to the second notification could claim the exemption under Notification dated 11-10-1979, if they were entitled to such exemption, on the envil of doctrine of promissory estoppel. In that context the Supreme Court has observed as under:"it is not disputed that the first order namely, the one dated 11-4-1979 gave more of tax exemption than the second one. In that context the Supreme Court has observed as under:"it is not disputed that the first order namely, the one dated 11-4-1979 gave more of tax exemption than the second one. The second notification withdraw the exemption relating to purchase tax and confined the exemption from sales tax to the limit-specified in the proviso of the Notification. All parties before us who in response to the order of April 11, 1979 set up their industries prior to 21-10-1980 within the State of Kerala would thus be entitled to the exemption extended and/or promised under that Order. Such exemption would continue for the full period of five years from the date they started production. New industries set up after 21-10-1980 obviously would not be entitled to that benefit as they had notice of the curtailment in the exemption before they came to set up their industries. "the principles is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. ( 6 ) IN the result this petition is allowed. Recovery Notice dated 5-12-1986 (Annex. J.) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are restrained from withdrawing the benefit of the Saks Tax Incentive Scheme from the petitioner for the full period of the Scheme for which the petitioner was eligible prevalent before Notification dated 17-8-1982. Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as to costs. .