JUDGMENT 1. - The facts giving rise to this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India briefly stated are as under:- 2. The petitioner is a Small Scale Industry and his Company is registered with the Registrar of Companies under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and also with the District Industries Centre, Jaipur. The petitioner-Company is also registered with the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, 'E' Circle, Jaipur under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. the petitioner-Company initially produced small quantity of Sulphur Black in the year 1985-86. He mixed various ingredients manually. The sale of such products was not commercially profitable. Petitioner-Company therefore, took the land at Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur on 10.12.87 and got it registered with the District Industrial Centre, Jaipur vide registration dated 16.12.88. Loan for the above business was also sanctioned by the Rajasthan Financial Corporation on 6.1.88. Subsequently, the Company with full infrastructure started commercial production in July, 1989. The petitioner submitted an application to the District Industries Centre, Jaipur on 28.11.89 for grant of incentive deferment scheme. District Industries Centre, Jaipur issued letter dated 23.11.90 communicating the petitioner that ,his application for grant of incentive was rejected by the Managing Director, District Level Screening Committee on 16.10.90 under clause 2(a)(i) of the New Deferment Scheme on the ground that previously the industrial unit for the petitioner was in operation at some other place and he merely changed the place of business. Aggrieved against the order petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer which was rejected vide order dated 14.10.91. Now, the petitioner has come to this Court in the instant writ petition. 3. I have heard Shri R.B. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri G.S. Bapna, learned counsel for the respondetns. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the Tribunal committed an error in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner as barred by limitation. He further contended that no objection regarding limitation was raised by the Department before the District Level Screening Committee and the District Level Screening Committee rejected the claim of the petitioner on merit and as such Tribunal should have also decided the appeal of the petitioner on merit instead of throwing it on the question of limitation. He further contended that no objection regarding limitation was raised by the Department before the District Level Screening Committee and the District Level Screening Committee rejected the claim of the petitioner on merit and as such Tribunal should have also decided the appeal of the petitioner on merit instead of throwing it on the question of limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Company urged that since the Department did not raise any objection regarding limitation before the Committee it was estopped from raising the same for the first time before the Tribunal. Mr.G.S. Bapna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that the question of limitation was a question of law and as such it was rightly raised before the Tribunal at appellate stage. The said contention does not appear to be tenable in as much as the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and moreover in case the Tribunal permitted the question of limitation to be raised at appellate stage then, it would have been more proper on the part of the Tribunal to have remanded the case to the District Level Screening Committee when the application of the petitioner was rejected purely on merit. I have also perused the proceedings of the District Level Screening Committee dated 20.11.90, Annexure-8 to the writ petition and I find that the case of the petitioner was considered by the Committee on merit. I would like to express that the order passed by the District Level Screening Committee though purely on merit it is in fact no order in the eyes of law in as much as it does not contain any reason. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by the District Level Screening Committee by passing a very cryptic order, which runs as under:- HINDI MATTER 365034 4. From the narration of the aforesaid facts it is crystal clear that the only question involved in the appeal before the Tribunal was whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of deferment scheme or not, whether the Unit of the petitioner was newly established one or it was merely change of place of the business. 5. From the narration of the aforesaid facts it is crystal clear that the only question involved in the appeal before the Tribunal was whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of deferment scheme or not, whether the Unit of the petitioner was newly established one or it was merely change of place of the business. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after careful consideration of the order passed by the Tribunal, I am of the definite view that in fact the Tribunal misdirected itself in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner as barred by time instead of deciding the same on merit and thus the impugned-order cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed. 6. In the result, petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 14.10.91 passed by the Tribunal is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal with a direction to decide the appeal on merit after hearing the learned counsel for the parties within a period of 3 months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order of this Court. 7. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******