JUDGMENT Heard Shri Bharat Ji Agarwal for the petitioners and Shri V. N. Agarwal, Standing Counsel, for the respondents. By this petition the petitioners seek a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated June 3, 1992 (annexure 11 to the writ petition), whereby the petitioners' application dated December 4, 1991 for review of the order dated November 29, 1991 (annexure 7 to the writ petition) has been rejected. In brief, the facts leading to this writ petition are as under : Petitioner No. 1 was a sole proprietorship concern of Shri Mahesh Chand who died on July 5, 1991. Petitioner No. 2, Smt. Gulabwati is the widow of Shri Mahesh Chand. Vide Government order dated September 30, 1982, the State Government have offered the incentive for exemption from payment of sales tax to all the industries established in the State of Uttar Pradesh according to the norms laid down by the State Government. Allured by the aforesaid incentive the deceased Mahesh Chand had decided to establish the petitioner-concern for manufacturing polythene sheets and bags. After completing all the requisite legal formalities as required for establishing an industry in the State, the petitioner-concern applied for exemption from payment of sales tax under section 4-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the Rules framed thereunder. However, the said application for exemption from payment of sales tax was rejected by the Divisional Level Committee (respondent No. 2) vide its order dated November 29, 1991 (annexure to the writ petition), on the grounds that the petitioners have not complied with the requirements for claiming exemption under section 4-A of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, that looking to the costs of the machines installed, the same do not appear to be new ones, and, lastly that the petitioners could not file Small Scale Industry (SSI) Registration Certificate with effect from January 22, 1989. Against this order a review application dated December 4, 1991 was preferred by the petitioners which too met the same fate vide the impugned order dated June 3, 1992 (annexure 11 to the writ petition) passed by the Divisional Level Committee (respondent No. 2). It is against the said impugned order dated June 3, 1992 (annexure 11 to the writ petition) that the present writ petition has been preferred. It is against the said impugned order dated June 3, 1992 (annexure 11 to the writ petition) that the present writ petition has been preferred. Shri Bharat Ji Agarwal submits that the grounds assigned in the impugned order dated November 29, 1991 (annexure 7 to the writ petition) for rejecting the application for grant of exemption are not based upon any material on record. Besides, this, for rejecting the review application under the impugned order dated June 3, 1992 (annexure 11 to the writ petition) the Divisional Level Committee (respondent No. 2) has assigned altogether different grounds on the face of the record specially when no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the petitioners before passing the said order. In support of his contention the learned counsel submits that for grant of exemption under section 4-A of the Act the accessories or components to be used in an industry within the meaning of the Act should not already be used or acquired for use in any other factory or workshop in India and the petitioners have indeed according to Shri Agarwal installed such machines which were not already used or acquired for use in any other factory or workshop in India. The petitioners produced documentary evidence, i.e., receipts, etc., before the respondents in order to establish that they had installed the machines in accordance with the abovementioned requirements of law, but according to Shri Agarwal no heed was paid to the same before passing the two impugned orders dated November 29, 1991 and June 3, 1992 (annexures 7 and 11 respectively to the writ petition). Shri Bharat Ji Agarwal further submits that the first sale took place on January 22, 1989 after fulfilling all the requirements and, therefore, at least from this date the petitioners are entitled to the exemption sought. Besides this, he also submits that after the death of the sole proprietor Shri Mahesh Chand, the factory was closed after July 5, 1991 and, therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Divisional Level Committee (respondent No. 2) to the effect that on an enquiry it was found that after July 5, 1991 the factory was closed has nothing to do with the earlier functioning of the factory for which the petitioners have sought exemption from payment of sales tax. However, replying to the arguments of Shri Bharat Ji Agarwal, Shri V. N. Agarwal, Standing Counsel, supporting the impugned orders dated November 29, 1991 and June 3, 1992 contained in annexures 7 and 11 respectively to the writ petition submits that the authorities have acted within the purview of the settled norms and have rightly repelled the submissions of the petitioners by rejecting the application for exemption from payment of sales tax and the review application dated December 4, 1991 and, thus this petition is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits. Having considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused both the impugned orders dated November 29, 1991 and June 3, 1992 contained in annexures 7 and 11 respectively to the writ petition, this Court is of the opinion that no cogent and convincing reasons have been assigned for rejecting the aforesaid applications and, therefore, it is a fit case to be remanded to the Divisional Level Committee (respondent No. 2) and the two impugned orders dated November 29, 1991 and June 3, 1992 contained in annexures 7 and 11 respectively to the writ petition are liable to be quashed. The grounds assigned for rejecting the application of the petitioners for grant of exemption certificate under the impugned order dated November 29, 1991 contained in annexure 7 to the writ petition are to the effect that the petitioners had not complied with the requirements for getting the exemption from payment of sales tax under section 4-A of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder as well as under the Government Orders issued from time to time and further that the petitioner had not taken any interest to get the enquiry completed besides the grounds that the machinery installed in the factory were old ones and that the petitioners had failed to produce Small Scale Industry (SSI) Registration Certificate, which all are vague for not assigning any cogent and convincing reasons to arrive at the conclusion to mention specifically that there is no mention as to which requirement the petitioners had not complied with or fulfilled and as to how the petitioners had not taken any interest in completing the enquiry, whereas it is the petitioners who had applied for grant of the exemption and were very much interested to get the certificate so that they may not be required to pay sales tax. As far as the ground with regard to the condition of the machinery is concerned, when the petitioners had produced the bill in proof of purchase of the machinery how the authority concerned could doubt without disclosing cogent reasons that the machinery purchased were not new ones but are used ones. Similar is the case with regard to the last ground assigned for rejecting the application for non-production of the SSI Registration Certificate before it. The conclusion arrived at in the order dated June 3, 1992 contained in annexure 11 to the writ petition that after the death of Mahesh Chand on July 5, 1991 the firm was not reconstituted has also nothing to do with the exemption certificate as at the most if the petitioners fulfilled all the requirements at least the petitioners are entitled to get exemption from payment of sales tax up to the date of death of Shri Mahesh Chand. Thereafter, reconstitution of the firm has no bearing upon the exemption certificate. It is further found that on February 27, 1992 when the inspection was done the factory was found closed. Thereafter, reconstitution of the firm has no bearing upon the exemption certificate. It is further found that on February 27, 1992 when the inspection was done the factory was found closed. It is the case of the petitioners that after the death of Shri Mahesh Chand on July 5, 1991 the factory is closed. Therefore, this has also no relevance. Similarly the letter returned back with an endorsement by the post office that the firm from which the machinery were purchased was not in existence is also no ground as no adverse inference can be drawn on the basis of the said endorsement. It was for the authority concerned to investigate personally as to whether the firm from which the machinery are said to have been purchased was in existence or not or whether the firm had in the meantime shifted elsewhere. Indeed, if from the enquiry it revealed that from the date of the purchase of the machinery the firm was not in existence, certainly the petitioners application was not only liable to be rejected but some stern action was also required to be taken against the petitioners for furnishing false informations to the authority concerned, but surprisingly enough this was also not done. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, in arriving at the conclusions under the two impugned orders dated November 29, 1991 and June 3, 1992 contained in annexures 7 and 11 respectively to the writ petition the authority concerned has not applied its mind and thus the same cannot be allowed to stand. Consequently, from the aforesaid discussion, both the impugned orders dated November 29, 1991 and June 3, 1992 contained in annexures 7 and 11 respectively to the writ petition are hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the Divisional Level Committee (respondent No. 2) with a direction to investigate into the matter afresh and to pass a speaking order within three months from the date of producing the certified copy of this order before it after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Matter remanded.