R. BALIA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a Company engaged in the business of zink ingots. The State of Gujarat under the provisions of Gujarat Sales Tax Act 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by Resolution dated 27-8-1980 introduced Sales Tax Incentive Scheme in respect of new industries established in the backward areas at the rates prescribed under the Scheme. The benefit under the Scheme was to be made available to the dealer with effect from the date it commences commercial production. The petitioner tempted by the aforesaid incentive scheme took effective steps for establishing industry for the manufacture of zink-ingots in Bharuch District. The commercial production commenced on 15-9-1981. On an application made in that behalf for obtaining the benefit of deferred payment under the Scheme the petitioner was issued eligibility certificate on 12 and consequently exemption certificate was issued on 6-11-1982. In the mean time the Government issued another notification dated 17 under which the industry established by the petitioner was included in the list of the industries not eligible for availing of the benefit under the Scheme. As a result of the aforesaid notification dated 17-8-1982 in the month of June 1986 the Sales-Tax authority called upon the petitioner to pay the amount of Sales-tax recovered by the petitioner on the goods sold after 17-8-1982 the date on which the Notification excluding the industry manufacturing the zink-ingotes from the purview of the Scheme was passed. ( 2 ) IT is this action on the part of the respondents seeking to withdraw the benefits under Notification dated 27-8-1980 which is challenged in the aforesaid petition. The petitioner relies on the doctrine of promissory estoppel for challenging the said action on the part of the respondents. ( 2 ) IT is this action on the part of the respondents seeking to withdraw the benefits under Notification dated 27-8-1980 which is challenged in the aforesaid petition. The petitioner relies on the doctrine of promissory estoppel for challenging the said action on the part of the respondents. ( 3 ) IT may be noticed that under the Notification dated 27-8-1980 (Annexure B to the petition) under which the petitioner claimed Sales-tax deferment benefit the petitioner was entitled for the said benefit for the period from 15-9-1981 to 14 In the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court asserting that once the petitioner became entitled to claim the benefits under the 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 secure certain benefits on fulfilling their part of the terms under such Scheme. It is well established that though the Government is entitled to withdraw the benefits under the said Scheme but that authority is operative only prospectively and does not affect the right vested in the entrepreneurs to claim the benefit of the scheme and that right remaining uneffected to claim such benefits as envisaged under the Scheme they are entitled to claim the said benefits. 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 said industry was included in the list of the industries not eligible for claiming the benefit under the said Scheme and in fact 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 decisions in the cases 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 SCT 147 of this Court and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pournami Oils Mills etc. vs. State of Kerala and another reported in AIR 1987 Supreme Court 590 It is pertieant 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 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. The second notification withdrew 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 is response to the order of April 11 1979 set up their industries prior to 21-10-1981 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 curtainment in the exemption before they came to set up their industries. The principle is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. ( 6 ) IN the result this petition is allowed. Recovery Notice dated 4-7-1986 (Annex. G) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are restrained from withdrawing the benefit of the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme from the petitioner for the full period of the Scheme for which the petitioner was eligible prevalent before the notification dated 17-8-1982. Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as to costs. Petition Allowed. .