JUDGMENT - N.D. VYAS, J. :---By the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of notice dated 8th March 1988 demand notice dated 21st April 1988 and the Trade Circular dated 14th July 1986 issued by the respondent No. 3 2.The short question which requires consideration in the present writ petition is whether the petitioners would be entitled to claim benefit of the Package Scheme of Incentives brought into force with effect from 1st August 1979 in respect of turnover tax and additional tax. Thus, the controversy revolves round the said scheme. 3.The petitioner No. 1 is a Private Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of grey iron castings for automobiles and other industries. They set up an industrial unit for the manufacture of the said items at Solapur in 1982 and were granted registration as small scale unit issued by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Solapur. The petitioner No. 1 had invested a total amount of Rs. 19,17,608,67 in setting up the said industry. By a resolution dated 5th January 1980, the respondent No. 1 brought into force a modified Package Scheme of Incentives with retrospective effect from 1st August 1979. The Package Scheme of Incentives comprised mainly of incentive qua sales tax relief in electricity tariff, octroi etc. The Western Maharashtra Development Corporation Ltd. was appointed as implementing agency for implementing the scheme for the District of Solapur. The Scheme provided for criteria for eligibility under the Scheme and also inter alia provided that incentives under the said scheme should not be claimed unless an eligibility certificate had been issued by the implementing agency concerned and the unit had complied with the conditions contained therein. The Scheme was widely published by the respondent No. 1 which also issued a press note setting out the incentives under the Scheme for persons setting up industrial units in the developing areas of the State. By a resolution dated 5th July 1986, the respondent No. 1 modified their resolution dated 5th January 1980 and inter alia provided further relief in Sales Tax. By a resolution dated 5th July 1986, the respondent No. 1 modified their resolution dated 5th January 1980 and inter alia provided further relief in Sales Tax. It is the petitioners' contention in the petition that relying upon the representations, assurances and promises given by the respondents, the petitioner No. 1 decided to set up the said industry at Solapur, an underdeveloped area falling in Group 'C' of the annexure to the said resolution dated 5th January 1980. The petitioners, as per this modified scheme, opted for deferral scheme of Sales Tax while applying for their eligibility certificate, and on the basis whereof, the eligibility certificate was granted on 19th September 1982 to the petitioner No. 1. The period of eligibility was for seven years, from 1st October 1982 to 30th September 1989 and thus, the petitioners availed of the facility of deferral scheme of Sales Tax. With effect from 1st April 1983, the respondent No. 1 introduced section 15A(1) to the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1959 providing for levy of Additional Tax in the case of dealers whose turnover exceeded Rs. 10,00,000/- per year. Thereafter, with effect from 13th July 1986, the respondent No. 1 introduced section 9 to the said Act whereby Turnover Tax at the rate of 1.25% on the goods specified in schedule 'C' therefore was payable by a dealer whose turnover on all sales exceeded Rs. 12,00,000/- per year. By notice dated 8th March 1988, the respondent No. 2 informed the petitioner No. 1 that they had not paid Additional Tax from 1st July 1984 and Turnover Tax from 30th July 1986 and they were called upon to pay the said Additional Tax and Turnover Tax from the said dates forthwith. The petitioner No. 1 were also served with demand notice for additional tax in the sum of Rs. 10.627/- and Additional Tax in the sum of Rs 9,271/- for the period from 1st July 1986 to 31st July 1986 and 1st December 1986 to 30th June 1987. They also received a further demand notice dated 21st April 1988 for a sum of Rs 13,942/- being Additional Tax and Rs. 12,161/- being Turnover Tax for a period from 1st July 1987 to 31st December 1987. They also received a further demand notice dated 21st April 1988 for a sum of Rs 13,942/- being Additional Tax and Rs. 12,161/- being Turnover Tax for a period from 1st July 1987 to 31st December 1987. A reply was sent by the petitioners through their advocate on 10th April 1987 calling upon the respondents to withdraw the said notice dated 8th March 1988 and the said demand notices giving reasons therein. In short, it was the stand taken by the petitioners that under the said scheme, the incentives were also extended to the Additional Tax and Turnover Tax demanded. Thereafter, the petitioners came across a trade circular dated 14th July 1986 wherein the respondent No. 3, after referring to the introduction of turnover tax under section 9 of the said Act, stated that in case of a unit entitled to deferment of taxes by virtue of the eligibility certificate and entitlement certificate granted to it under the Package Scheme of Incentives, the deferment of taxes would be permissible only in respect of sales tax and purchase tax payable by it as reduced by the set-off admissible to it. It was further stated that the deferment would not be permissible in respect of turnover tax payable by the unit. The petitioners in the present petition have thus challenged the above notice, demand notice and the Trade Circular. 4.Shri Presswala the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the Turnover Tax and Additional Tax were nothing else but the sales tax under the said Act and therefore the facility of deferral payment opted for by the petitioners was available qua these two taxes also. Shri Zambre, learned Additional Government Pleader, on the other hand submitted that the scheme under which the benefits are claimed by the petitioners specifically provided for sales tax, purchase tax and general tax and that therefore, there was no scope for extending the benefit to the Additional Tax or Turnover Tax. In order to appreciate these rival stands taken by the parties, it is necessary to go into the scheme itself in order to find out whether the petitioners are entitled to claim the benefit of the said scheme in respect of 'Turnover Tax' and 'Additional Tax' as claimed by them. In order to appreciate these rival stands taken by the parties, it is necessary to go into the scheme itself in order to find out whether the petitioners are entitled to claim the benefit of the said scheme in respect of 'Turnover Tax' and 'Additional Tax' as claimed by them. The Government Resolution dated 5th January 1980 providing for the Package Scheme of Incentives in its preamble stated as under :- "in order to achieve dispersal of industries outside the Bombay-Thane-Pune belt, Government has been giving since 1964 to the industrial units coming up in the developing areas of the State, a package of incentives comprising mainly the refund of sales tax, relief in electricity tariff, octroi etc. This Scheme was reviewed by the Government from time to time and with effect from August 1, 1976, a Package Scheme of Graded Incentives (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1976 Scheme'), was sanctioned by Government Resolution, Industries, Energy and Labour Department No. I.D.L. 7076/6212(5)/ IND. 8 dated 18th January 1977. The period of the 1976 Scheme expired on July 31, 1979." The said preamble further provided :- "Government had under consideration the question of revising and integrating these schemes and making them more broad-based and effective so as to speed up the pace of industrialisation in the developing regions of the State." Para 1.2 thereof provided that the Scheme would remain in operation for a period from 1st August 1979 to 31st March 1983. Thus, the Scheme was made retrospective in its operation. Para 1.3 provided for classification of areas in which four groups ,were shown and admittedly the petitioners' unit set up in Solapur would fall within Group 'C'. Para 2.1 provided for issuance of eligibility certificate and provided that the same would be issued effective from the date of commencement of commercial production, which date would be determined by the implementing agency based on the criteria set out therein. Para 2.3 deals with effective steps comprising initial effective steps and final effective steps. Para 2.8 defines "Local Sales Tax Law" and provides that the same phraseology would mean the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1959 inforce upto the date of repeal thereof or the Maharashtra Sales Tax Act 1979 from such date it is brought into force by the State Government by issuance of Notification in the Official Gazette. Para 2.8 defines "Local Sales Tax Law" and provides that the same phraseology would mean the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1959 inforce upto the date of repeal thereof or the Maharashtra Sales Tax Act 1979 from such date it is brought into force by the State Government by issuance of Notification in the Official Gazette. Para 2.10 provides that an industrial unit for the setting up of which at least one of the final effective steps is completed after 1st August 1979 would be considered a new unit provided that it satisfies the two conditions mentioned therein. Para 2.11 provides for "Notional Sales Tax Liability" as to mean briefly the sales tax , general sales tax , purchase tax and taxes payable under the Central Sales Tax Act 1956. Para 2.12 provides for period of eligibility as being 3 years, 7 years, 5 years, 9 years or 13 years as the case may be. Para 2.16 defines sales tax liability as meaning sales tax/ purchase tax/general sales tax as the case may be payable and paid under the Local Sales Tax Law during that period on purchases of raw materials reduced by the set-off at appropriate rates, if any, admissible thereunder and also on sales of finished products of the eligible unit. Para 4.2 provides for Regional Development Corporations for implementing the said Scheme in respect of small scale units. Para 4.3 provides that sales tax incentives under Part-I and Part-II are mutually exclusive. Para 5.1 provides that sales tax incentive would be admissible only to a new unit and not to a near new unit. Para 5.2 provides that by way of sales tax incentive under Part-I, the eligible unit would ordinarily be entitled to exemption from payment of sales tax, general sales tax and purchase tax payable under the Local Sales Tax Law on purchases of raw materials and also on sales of finished products of the eligible unit and central sales tax under the Central sales Tax Act 1956. Para 5.3 provides for period of eligibility and in respect of Group 'C', the same for small scale unit is provided as 7 years. Para 5.3 provides for period of eligibility and in respect of Group 'C', the same for small scale unit is provided as 7 years. 5.There is no dispute as to the fact that the petitioner No. 1 unit falls under Group 'C' as classified under para 5.3 mentioned above which has taken all effective steps and has been issued eligibility certificate and is entitled to sales tax incentives under Part-I as per para 4.2 of the Scheme. 6.By a further Government Resolution dated 5th July 1982, after repeating the object of the Scheme, viz. for dispersing industries outside the industrially congested Bombay-Thane-Pune belt and for attracting them to backward areas of the State, it provided for certain modification to the 1979 Scheme as such modifications became expedient on account of certain difficulties which cropped up during the operation of the Scheme. Basically, the only part of the said modification which is valuable for our purpose is the option introduced under Part-I of the Sales Tax Incentive. The Sales Tax Deferral Scheme in lieu of exemption to the eligible units was provided and the benefits under the said Scheme were proposed to be given with effect from 1st April 1982. Thus para 5 relating to Sales Tax Incentive, Part-I was suitably amended. It is the admitted position that as per the Scheme as modified by the further Government Resolution dated 5th July 1982, the petitioner No. 1 opted for the Deferral Scheme. The only controversy, it appears which has arisen is as a result of the Scheme which it refers only to sales tax, general tax, general tax and purchase tax. 7.The said scheme mentioned above, defines what is Local Tax Law. It also defines what is sales tax liability. It is true that the only types of taxes which are referred under the definition of sales tax liability are sales tax, general sales tax and purchase tax and that there is no mention of turnover tax or additional tax. The reason is obvious as when the Scheme came into force, neither turnover tax nor additional tax found its place on the statute. As mentioned earlier, additional tax came on the statute of 1983 as a result of new section 15A(1) which was introduced by Amending Act 7 of 1983. The reason is obvious as when the Scheme came into force, neither turnover tax nor additional tax found its place on the statute. As mentioned earlier, additional tax came on the statute of 1983 as a result of new section 15A(1) which was introduced by Amending Act 7 of 1983. Similarly, the turnover tax came on the statute under section 9 in the year 1986 as a result of Amending Act 28 of 1986. Shri Presswala submitted that the very idea of giving package incentives and inter alia providing for a relief in the form of deferral payment of sales tax would be defeated if the scheme when it speaks of only for sales tax, general sales tax and purchase tax is restricted only to those three and not extended to 'additional tax' and turnover tax. It was his submission that even after modification of the scheme by Government Resolution dated 5th July 1982, whenever further modification has taken place, the law as it stood on the date of such modification of Scheme was incorporated in the Scheme inasmuch as the last incentive is in force today under the Government Resolution dated 7th May 1993 which inter alia speaks of all types of sales tax by whatever names they are called. Thus, the 1993 Scheme provides for purchase tax, sales tax, additional tax and turnover tax. Shri Zambre, on the other hand, submitted that the Scheme when it provided only for sales tax, general sales tax and purchase tax, the incentives qua sales tax were available only in respect of those three and cannot be extended. We are not at all impressed by the submissions made on behalf of the respondents. The very basis or rather the very objective of this package scheme of Incentives as set out in the preamble to the Government Resolution of 5th January 1980 was to achieve dispersal of industries outside Bombay-Pune-Thane belt as modified by Government Resolution dated 5th July 1982 for attracting such industries to the developing and backward areas of the State. If the idea was only to grant limited incentives, that idea would have been reflected in the Schemes. If the idea was only to grant limited incentives, that idea would have been reflected in the Schemes. The overall effect of the Scheme is that the persons are in fact pursuaded to set up industries in a developing and backward area with dual purpose, one being that the overcrowding of industries in the industrially congested Bombay-Thane-Pune belt is reduced and the second being that the backward areas of the State would be developed. Surely the objective of the State Government cannot be interpreted to be restricted only to certain incentives. In our opinion, although the Scheme as modified by Government Resolution of 1982 speaks of sales tax, general sales tax and purchase tax, the same is deemed to be extended also to the additional tax and turnover tax. In our opinion, additional tax and turnover tax- are nothing but facets of sales tax, they are based on sales. By whatever nomenclature they are called in a sense they are sales tax. Thus, they would be squarely covered by the Scheme. 8.Shri Presswala in support of his submission relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in the matter of (S. Kodar v. State of Kerala)1, reported in 34 S.T.C. 73. The Supreme Court was dealing with a question whether the introduction of additional tax was beyond the legislative competence in view of entry 54 of List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. The Supreme Court while holding that the additional tax was nothing else but sales tax, inter alia observed as follows :- "As regards the contention that the State Legislature has no power to pass the measure, we are of the view that the additional tax is really a tax on the sale of goods. The object of the Act, as is clear from its provisions, is to increase the tax on the sale or purchase of goods imposed by the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act 1959 and the fact that the quantum of the additional tax is determined with reference to the sales tax imposed would not alter its character. It may be noted that the additional tax is to be imposed only if the turnover of a dealer exceeds Rs. 10 lakhs. It is in reality a tax on the aggregate of sales effected by a dealer during a year. It may be noted that the additional tax is to be imposed only if the turnover of a dealer exceeds Rs. 10 lakhs. It is in reality a tax on the aggregate of sales effected by a dealer during a year. The additional tax, therefore, is an enhancement in the rate of the sales tax when the turnover of a dealer exceeds Rs. 10 lakhs a year and it is a tax on the aggregate of the sales effected by the dealer during the year. The decision in Ernakulam Radio Company v. State of Kerala, which was affirmed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Kilikar v. Sales Tax Officer took that view. The same view was taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A.S. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh. This is the correct view. Entry 54 in List II authorises the State Legislature to impose a tax on the sale or purchase of goods. So, the contention of the appellants that the additional sales tax is not a tax on sales but on the income of the dealer is without any basis." Shri Presswala further sought support from recent decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of (State of Karnataka v. Sunagar Brothers)2, reported in (1993) 3 S.C.C. 16 wherein the Supreme Court held as follows :- "7. The fact that the quantum of the additional tax is determined with reference to the sales tax/purchase tax imposed would not alter its character. The additional tax is nothing but an enhancement in the rate of the sales tax/purchase tax under the Act. As soon as the assessing authority determines the levy of sales tax/purchase tax the additional tax under section 6B becomes part of the assessment order. Similarly if the main impost under section 5(1) is successfully challenged, the reasoning sustaining the challenge would also - ipso facto- affect the validity of the additional impost under section 6B of the Act." It is not necessary for us to analyse the question any further in view of the above two decisions. It cannot lie in the mouth of the respondents to say that the additional tax and the turnover tax are not sales tax. The acceptance of such an argument would amount to the State introducing these taxes beyond its legislative competence under Entry 54 in List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. It cannot lie in the mouth of the respondents to say that the additional tax and the turnover tax are not sales tax. The acceptance of such an argument would amount to the State introducing these taxes beyond its legislative competence under Entry 54 in List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution. Thus, it cannot be gainsaid that these two taxes are sales tax. We see considerable merit in the submissions advanced by Shri Presswala on behalf of the petitioners and we hold that the petitioners are covered by the Package Incentive Scheme in respect of these two taxes also. 9.There is an additional submission which was advanced on behalf of the petitioners by Shri Presswala and we see considerable merit in the same. It was submitted that accepting the view taken by the respondents would amount to discrimination between entrepreneurs who opted for the exemption part of the Government Resolution dated 5th July 1982 and those who opted for the 'deferral' part of the same Government Resolution. As mentioned earlier, the modified Government Resolution of 5th July 1982 gave an option to an entrepreneur. Had the petitioner No. 1 opted for total exemption, they would have been exempted from payment of these taxes. However, they opted for deferral part of the said Resolution resulting in issuance of notice and demand notice on them. We did not see any answer forthcoming from the respondents. It is obvious that this cannot be the objective of the Scheme to treat similarly situated entrepreneurs in a different manner. 10.Lastly, it was submitted that the action on the part of the respondents was arbitrary and unreasonable inasmuch as the effect of the deferral payment was only postponement of payment for a period of 12 years and that under no circumstances, the respondent No. 1 would be deprived of their revenue inasmuch as the payment of the petitioner No. 1's sales tax liability by whatever name called would be effective after the expiry of the stipulated interval. It was thus submitted that the respondents were not losing any revenue and that their action in enforcing recovery of the turnover tax and additional tax is squarely irregular particularly when they have permitted to postpone payment of sales tax and purchase tax payable under the Bombay Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act. We see considerable merit in the above submission. We see considerable merit in the above submission. There cannot be two opinions about it as to the effect of allowing deferral payment facility to the petitioner No. 1. The reason as Shri Presswala put it would be clearly postponement of payment of tax and for this reason also we consider the action on the part of the respondents as arbitrary and irregular. Lastly, it was submitted that the respondents by their Resolution dated 5th January 1980, as modified by Resolution dated 5th July 1982 unequivocally repeated that the sales tax liability of the petitioner No. 1 would be deferred for a period of 12 years on the petitioners fulfilling conditions of eligibility set out therein. There is no dispute that the petitioner No. 1 have fulfilled all the eligibility conditions and are therefore entitled for deferral payment of sales tax in terms of the representations, assurances and promises given by the respondents as aforesaid. It was submitted that on the basis of the representations, assurances and promises, the petitioner No. 1 altered their position by setting up their industrial unit in the developing area of Solapur and that in the process, they invested huge amounts in their project and but/ for the said assurances and promises, the petitioner No. 1 would not have acted to the detriment. We again see considerable merit in the above submission. The very objective of the Scheme was to attract industries in the developing areas like Solapur. It cannot be denied that huge amounts have been invested by the petitioner No. 1 in setting up the industry. It cannot also be denied that the petitioners have been found eligible and it cannot also be denied that in respect of sales tax, general sales tax and purchase tax, they have been permitted deferral payment of tax. Had they been found ineligible, even this facility in respect of these three taxes also would not have been allowed to them. We again see considerable merit in the above submission. The respondents cannot be now permitted to back out of the assurances given when the petitioner No. 1 have acted to their detriment and have invested large amount in the project. More so, when the facilities to which the petitioners are asking to which they are obviously entitled are only deferral payment of the additional tax and turnover tax. The respondents cannot be now permitted to back out of the assurances given when the petitioner No. 1 have acted to their detriment and have invested large amount in the project. More so, when the facilities to which the petitioners are asking to which they are obviously entitled are only deferral payment of the additional tax and turnover tax. In our opinion, the petitioner No, 1 are entitled as a matter of right under the said Scheme to have the said facility. 11.For all the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the petitioners have made out a very strong case for grant of reliefs by this Court. Petition is thus made absolute in terms of prayers (a) , (b) and (c) of the petition. Rule is thus made absolute in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) of the petition with no order as to costs. Petition allowed. *****