R. BALIA, SUSANTA CHATTERJI, J. ( 1 ) THIS Special Civil Application has come up before this Court in the following circumstances. By Notification dated 5. 2. 1981 issued under Section 49 (2) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act 1969 the State Government exempted sales by specified manufacturers of goods manufactured by them from payment of whole of sales tax. The condition of such exemption was that if the specified manufacturer had obtained an eligibility certificate from the Industries Commissioner or as the case may be from the General Manager of the District Industries Centre concerned stating therein that new industry has been commissioned within the period commencing from 1. 6. 1980 and ending on 31. 5. 1985 in any of the designated areas. In explanation appended to the Notification the expression designated areas meant firstly an area beyond 24 K. Ms. from the Cities of Ahmedabad and Vadodara as constituted under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949 and area beyond 10 K. Ms. from the Cities of Surat and Rajkot as constituted under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949 or from the Municipal Borough of Bhavnagar and Jamnagar as constituted under the Gujarat Municipalities Act 1963 In the Table specifying the limit of exemption divided various areas for the purpose of exemption Growth Centres A-Grade B-Grade and C-Grade. For the purposes of Ahmedabad Vadodara and other aforesaid Municipal limits it further specified that industries constituted beyond the specified kilometer limits of the aforesaid Municipalities large and medium industries shall get the benefit as per A-Grade Growth Centres and small scale industries shall get benefit as per C-Grade Growth Centres. Annexure-I was appended to the said Notification giving details of Growth Centres according to grade and also areas which are considered beyond the distance limits of 24 K. Ms. from the Municipal limits of Cities of Ahmedabad and Vadodara and 10 K. Ms. from the Municipal limits of Surat Bhavnagar Rajkot and Jamnagar. At Sr. No. 71 Bavla was stated to be a Grade-C Growth Centre constituted beyond the distance limit of 24 K. Ms. from the Municipal limits of Ahmedabad. ( 2 ) THE petitioner commenced commercial production of its industry established at Bavla on 1. 2 The petitioner unit is constituted beyond 24 K. Ms. from the Municipal limits of Ahmedabad. The petitioner applied for the eligibility certificate in the first instance on 21. from the Municipal limits of Ahmedabad. ( 2 ) THE petitioner commenced commercial production of its industry established at Bavla on 1. 2 The petitioner unit is constituted beyond 24 K. Ms. from the Municipal limits of Ahmedabad. The petitioner applied for the eligibility certificate in the first instance on 21. 9 The eligibility certificate (Annexure A5) was issued in favour of the petitioner stating that M/s. Jay Laminart Pvt. Ltd. which is located at Bavla and that it has been commissioned i. e. to say it has started commercial production from 1. 2 The petitioner was allowed to avail exemption from the payment of sales tax only upto 25 of its fixed capital investment. The petitioner moved an application (Annexure A6) pointing out to the Addl. Commissioner of Industries that while the total capital investment made by the petitioner has been Rs. 66 8 889 the project cost has been appraised only at Rs. 20 4 785 It was further urged that the petitioner unit is entitled to benefit at the rate of 50% of fixed capital investment being housed at C Grade Growth Centre the benefit extended is only 25% of the fixed capital investment. Considering the petitioners submissions the eligibility certificate dated 21. 9. 1985 was amended vide Annexure A7 dated 8. 4. 1988. While the project cost appraisal was increased from Rs. 20 4 785 to Rs. 56. 13 lacs the quantum of benefit under the Scheme was restricted to 25% of the capital investment only. ( 3 ) INSPITE of several representations being made to the authorities the petitioner failed to get any relief. The petitioner was given a reply dated 29. 7 stating that since the petitioner unit has not completed effective steps before 15. 6. 1982 as per the Policy it is not entitled to full rate of benefit. The aforesaid letter was replied to by the petitioner vide Annexure A15. In these circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a mandamus to the respondents for permitting the petitioner unit to avail benefit under the Scheme by making necessary amendment in the eligibility certificate. THE petitioner unit contends that it having fulfilled all the conditions of Notification dated 5. 2 (Annexure A2) and is an industry having been established at Bavla an area defined under the Notification to be an area beyond the distance limit of 24 K. Ms. THE petitioner unit contends that it having fulfilled all the conditions of Notification dated 5. 2 (Annexure A2) and is an industry having been established at Bavla an area defined under the Notification to be an area beyond the distance limit of 24 K. Ms. from the Municipal limits of Ahmedabad it is entitled to the full benefit of incentive upto 50% of its capital investment as are applicable to the industries established in C Grade Growth Centres. ( 4 ) MR. M. G. Doshit learned counsel for the respondents strenuously contended that the petitioner unit is not entitled to the full extent of benefit under the Scheme applicable to C Grade Growth Centre because the boundry limits of Bavla is within 24 K. Ms. from the Municipal limits of Ahmedabad and therefore industry established in Bavla is not eligible to get benefit under Notification dated 5. 2. 1981. He further submitted that it is only because of the Resolution giving certain relaxation the petitioner was allowed to avail 50% of the benefit as was available under the Scheme. For the contention raised on behalf of the respondents reliance was placed in a decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Western India Ceramic Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat and others Special Civil Application No. 4564 of 1985 decided on 19th 22 April 1991 ( 5 ) WE have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the relevant Notification and Resolutions relied on by the parties and are of the opinion that the petition merits acceptance. ( 6 ) THERE is no dispute about the facts that area known as Bavla has been included in the Notification granting exemption itself as one of the areas beyond the distance of 24 K. Ms. from the Municipal limits of Ahmedabad City. In view of this clear indication of the areas which are considered to be beyond the distance limit of 24 K. Ms. or 10 K. Ms. from the concerned Municipalities as the case may be it is not open for the respondents to contend that such areas which are defined under the Scheme itself to be falling beyond the prohibited limits will stand fall within the prohibited limits. The argument that part of the Village or Taluka area falling within 24 K. Ms. from the concerned Municipalities as the case may be it is not open for the respondents to contend that such areas which are defined under the Scheme itself to be falling beyond the prohibited limits will stand fall within the prohibited limits. The argument that part of the Village or Taluka area falling within 24 K. Ms. of the Municipal limits would result in excluding the entire area beyond 24 K. Ms. distance also from the purview of the operation of the Scheme cannot be sustained in view of the clear provision made in the Scheme itself in that behalf. So far as the identification of areas falling under Annexure-I to the Notification is concerned it is beyond the scope of debate by the authorities concerned to treat such areas to be within the prohibited limits by reference to any analogy or other arguments like the one which has been made by the learned counsel for the respondents. ( 7 ) SO far as the decision in the case of M/s. Western India Ceramic Pvt. Ltd. is concerned it does not carry the case of the respondents any further. That was a case in respect of incentive scheme dated 22. 7. 1977 and 27. 8. 1980. In pursuance of the said Scheme the Govt. has issued certain circulars notifying the identity of Growth Centres falling under Categories A B and C in which Padra area was shown to be falling under Category C Growth Centre. As a fact it was found by the Court that it was an area falling within 24 K. Ms. from the Municipal limits of Baroda. It is to be noticed that in the said case the Court was not concerned with the question of authority having jurisdiction to go beyond the identification of areas given under the Scheme itself which are eligible for the benefits under the Scheme. The Court was not concerned with giving effect to any provision made under statutory notification but was concerned with the question whether circular of Govt. accorded with the provisions of the Scheme contained in the statutory notification. ( 8 ) AS the Scheme under which the benefit is claimed by the petitioner unit is clear and mentions in no uncertain terms that the area in which the petitioner has established the industry is beyond 24 K. Ms. accorded with the provisions of the Scheme contained in the statutory notification. ( 8 ) AS the Scheme under which the benefit is claimed by the petitioner unit is clear and mentions in no uncertain terms that the area in which the petitioner has established the industry is beyond 24 K. Ms. limits of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation it has to be accepted that for the purposes of the Scheme Bavla or for that matter any area mentioned in Annexure-I attached to the Scheme has to be taken to have fulfilled eligibility conditions of being established beyond specified limits of concerned municipal limits for securing such benefits as are available under the Scheme. The petition succeeds on this ground alone. ( 9 ) THE reliance on Govt. Resolution dated 15. 7 allowing 50% of the benefit of Scheme then in force available to new industry established in backward area though situated within banned distance from specified municipal limits is misplaced. The said resolution was in respect of cash subsidy and not at all related to statutory notification dated 5. 2. 1981 with which the present application concerns. So also no help can be drawn from the clarification dated 29th September 1979 and 15th June 1982 by extending the resolution dated 15. 7. 1978 to the sales tax incentives. As the first resolution itself was not applicable to Sales Tax Incentive Scheme issued subsequently nor could it be made applicable to curtail the ambit and scope of the Scheme dated 5. 2 which is in the nature of subordinate legislation without making any amendment in the scheme itself. Moreover the clarification was issued to remove doubts about anything which was not in the scheme itself. It is to be noticed that the present Scheme came into existence after the said resolution dated 15. 9 and itself contained the list of areas considered beyond the banned distance. In view of clear provision in the scheme itself clarification of an anterior date issued with reference to some other scheme cannot be taken to have been extended to the scheme on hand which has made clear provisions about the ambiguous field of other schemes. ( 10 ) LIKEWISE the letter dated 15. 6. 1982 has no application to present case. The question of taking effective steps prior to 15. 6. ( 10 ) LIKEWISE the letter dated 15. 6. 1982 has no application to present case. The question of taking effective steps prior to 15. 6. 1982 has no relevance to claim of availing benefits under the incentive under Notification dated 5. 2. 1981. It was only a decision of administrative convenience to decide the claim of cash subsidy. The industries in respect of which effective steps were taken prior to 15. 6. 1982 were to be decided as per prevalent criterion adopted by the Commissioner of Industries prior to that date and for those where effective steps were taken after 15. 6 the criterion adopted in the circular was to be adopted. Obviously this was to make the circular prospectively effective keeping in view of its effect in claims to such benefit that may be founded on principle of promissory estoppel arising from the practice followed by the Govt. We are not concerned with any claim to cash subsidy for which the date of taking effective step could be relevant. The learned counsel for the revenue has also not supported the action on that ground. ( 11 ) ACCORDINGLY the Special Civil Application is allowed. The respondents are directed to amend the exemption certificate issued to the petitioner unit in accordance with this decision and grant the petitioner unit full benefits as are available under the Scheme for the industries established in C Grade Growth Centre. There will be no order as to costs. Application Allowed. .