N. J. PANDYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed under articles 14, 16 and 19 (l) (g) of the constitution of India with regard to "sales- tax Incentive Scheme for Industries" as also the "capital Investment Subsidy Scheme" promulgated by the State by way of government Resolution dated 16th October 1990 (Annex. B Page : 16 ). There, there is a concept of "original Investment in the project" [page : 27 Clause : (iv)]. The scheme is to operate for a period of five years starting from 16th August 1990. At page 20, explanation below Clause (c) may be usefully referred to because it refers to acquisition of assets which are paid for during the operative period of the scheme. ( 2 ) THE whole idea of the scheme, therefore, is that assets brought into the backward area of the State should be paid for and made operative so that on one hand, employment is generated and on the other hand, at the end of the Scheme, the State will start getting revenue to its fullest extent so far as levy of sales-tax is concerned. ( 3 ) RELYING on this, during the existence of the scheme, if assets are brought in and paid for legitimately the industrial concern will be expecting the benefit of the Scheme respect thereof. ( 4 ) IT is no doubt that the petitioner- company has fulfilled the requirements and, therefore, the various authorities have given required certificates as well as registration under the Scheme Page : 45 is the Sanction of State Cash Subsidy (Annex. E) granted by Gujarat Industrial Investment corporation Ltd. which is one of the requirements under the Scheme. ( 5 ) PAGE : 48c (Annex. F) is the copy of the Project Completion certificate which gives final picture as to the investment and this certificate is dated 11th July 1995. Against sanctioned assets for Cash Subsidy of Rs. 75. 11 Lakh, the Eligible Value of assets for disbursement of Cash Subsidy found by the GIIC Ltd. is Rs. 72. 29 Lakh. The commercial production has started on 23rd October 1992 which again is not in dispute. ( 6 ) WHEN the authorities were approached, the petitioner received reply dated 18th October 1995 (Page : 54 Annex. 75. 11 Lakh, the Eligible Value of assets for disbursement of Cash Subsidy found by the GIIC Ltd. is Rs. 72. 29 Lakh. The commercial production has started on 23rd October 1992 which again is not in dispute. ( 6 ) WHEN the authorities were approached, the petitioner received reply dated 18th October 1995 (Page : 54 Annex. J) saying that pursuant to the decision of the State Level Committee which is contemplated under Clause VIII of the scheme, the investment eligible for Cash subsidy under the Scheme is taken to be rs. 42,51,969. 00 ( 7 ) IN response to the notice, a return has been filed in the form of affidavit-in-reply of one Shri K. K. Chavda, Jt. Commissioner of Industries, DIC, Surat. ( 8 ) THE respondent-State is, therefore, placing the entire case on deliberation of the said State Level Committee under clause : VIII of the Scheme. No doubt, it is rightly pointed out by the learned AGP Shri kamal Mehta that State Level Committee comprises of high level officers of the State and deliberations unitwise have been faithfully recorded and so far as the petitioner is cocnerned, its case has been dealt with as Item No. 5 at page - 71. ( 9 ) OPENING line below Item No. 5 clearly indicates that the Committee was conscious that the computation of assets has to include assets which are brought in after the commencement of production and that is why there is a reference that "govt. Resolution says that the assets acquired and paid during the scheme is eligible for incentive. " ( 10 ) ONE would have expected this to be the end of the matter. However, the chairman of the Committee had to import one information and it was pertaining to the discussions held with Principal Secretary, finance Department in presence of Addl. Chief Secretary (Industries and Mines ). The decision taken at the said meeting was to the effect that the time limit has to be fixed for computing assets after the commencement of the commercial production. For the cases like that of the petitioner, the time fixed is six months after the date of commencement of production. ( 11 ) MR. Mehta, learned AGP is unable to point out any provision of the scheme which would permit this fixation of time limit. For the cases like that of the petitioner, the time fixed is six months after the date of commencement of production. ( 11 ) MR. Mehta, learned AGP is unable to point out any provision of the scheme which would permit this fixation of time limit. The Scheme, likewuse, is silent about there being any other committee other than under Clause VIII. The decision taken by the Committee functioning under Clause viii of the Scheme was not a decision of that Committee, but it merely accepted was the Principal Secretary, Finance department in presence of Addl. Chief secretary (Industries and Mines) had decided on the date prior to the date of meeting of the aforesaid State Level Committee. ( 12 ) IN the affidavit-in-reply, in para - 7, on page - 58, in last four lines, there is also mention of opinion expressed by the accountant General to the effect that the fixed capital investment made upto the commercial production date only should be considered for incentive purpose. The claim, therefore, made in the affidavit-in- reply is that the State Level Committee has taken a liberal view. ( 13 ) THERE is no question of taking any liberal view at all. It is a question of implementation of policy solemnly declared by the State in the form of Government resolution and unless therefore, anything is found in the Scheme itself restricting the date as to the acquisition of assets paid for from the date of commencement of production, the aforesaid decision cannot be sustained. ( 14 ) THE reference to the Scheme made so far clearly indicates that the acquisition of the assets during the subsistence of the scheme is also eligible for the benefits under the Scheme, but the only requirement is that of acquisition has to be paid for. It is nobodys case that the remaining amount of assets sought to be made eligible by the petitioner, is not paid for and there cannot be a dispute because the last mentioned certificate issued by the GIIC Ltd. certificate as such. ( 15 ) THE net result, therefore, is that the aforesaid decision of the State Level committee has to be set aside. ( 16 ) AS if this is not enough, pursuant to the said decision, office order is issued on 14th September 1994 (Annex. 2 Page 82) annexed with affidavit-in-reply. ( 15 ) THE net result, therefore, is that the aforesaid decision of the State Level committee has to be set aside. ( 16 ) AS if this is not enough, pursuant to the said decision, office order is issued on 14th September 1994 (Annex. 2 Page 82) annexed with affidavit-in-reply. The petitioner was never served with the circular or the office order and so could not annex with the petition though they did pray in the petition that the letter dated 14th September 1994 issued by 3rd respondent and consequential decision taken by 2nd respondent as indicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 13th November 1994 (Annex. A) both be quashed and set aside. ( 17 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the said Officer Order dated 14th September 1994 and the decision taken by 2nd respondent as indicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 13th November 1995 (Annex. A) both will have to go. Correspondingly, therefore, the prayer contained in Prayer (B) will have to be granted. ( 18 ) ACCORDINGLY, this petition is allowed. The communication dated 13th November 1995 and letter dated 14th September 1994 at Annex. A (Page : 82) are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to compute for Cash Subsidy Purpose and sales Tax Exemption Purpose the entire assets of Rs. 72. 29 Lakh as against 42. 52 lakh as determined by them. Fresh eligibility Certification keeping with the aforesaid directions and findings, shall be issued by the concerned authorities within a period of six weeks from today. ( 19 ) RULE is made absolute accordingly with no order as costs. .