V. K. SINGHAL, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER established a small scale industrial unit and the department of industries and commerce issued a certificate dated 20. 10. 1989 certifying that this is a new industrial unit and started commercial production on 9. 8. 1989 and first sale invoice is also of the same dated. The government of Karnataka have issued notifications for giving incentives to new industrial unit and one such notification was dated 30. 6. 1969. This notification was superceded by another notification dated 16. 10. 1981. In the year 1988 the entire scheme was re-examined by the government and notification dated 5. 12. 1988 was issued giving new incentives and concessions to industrial units. Benefit under this notification was available with effect from 1. 4. 1988. In para IX (c) it was specified that this incentives and concessions shall be applicable only for new industries whose investment has taken place on or after 1. 4. 1988 and subject to the condition that they have availed no such concession in part or full as per the package of incentives scheme available before 31. 3. 1988. ( 2 ) PETITIONER approached the first respondent for grant of certificate of eligibility which was issued on 2. 3. 1990 specifying the total value of plant and machinery acquired by the unit and the netvalue of the plant and machinery eligible for sales tax exemptions. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted applications Annexures-E and F that the value of the plant and machinery has not correctly been shown. Ultimately the certificate dated 23. 8. 1990 showing the value of plant and machinery at Rs. 4,14,406/- was issued though it was claimed at Rs. 8,33,434,65. Vide order dated 13. 9. 1990, the petitioner was informed that the loan has been sanctioned on 23. 3. 1988 which is the date prior to 1. 4. 1988 and it is not possible to issue the necessary certificate of fixed assets interms of the notification dated 5. 12. 1988. the second respondent by an endorsement dated 9. 10. 1990 demanded payment of tax of Rs. 16,582/ -. The petitioner has challenged the validity of this endorsement on the ground that the notification dated 7. 6. 4. 1988 and it is not possible to issue the necessary certificate of fixed assets interms of the notification dated 5. 12. 1988. the second respondent by an endorsement dated 9. 10. 1990 demanded payment of tax of Rs. 16,582/ -. The petitioner has challenged the validity of this endorsement on the ground that the notification dated 7. 6. 1989 refers to the investment made and the sanction of the loan has got nothing to do with the actual investment made and the notification has contemplated only the investment made and not the sanction of the loan. ( 3 ) LEARNED Government Advocate has relied on the order issued by the Government of Karnataka dated 10. 1. 1991 clarifying the Government order dated 27. 9. 1990. ( 4 ) ARGUMENTS of the Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard. The Government order dated 10. 1. 1991 is for clarification of the Government Order dated 27. 9. 1990 which is not relevant for the purpose of the present dispute because the petitioner has already commenced the commercial production from 9. 8. 1989. The only thing which has to be seen is as to whether sanction of loan by any financial institution prior to 31. 3. 1988 would dis-entitle the new unit for claiming the incentive. In the notification dated 7. 6. 1989 and the government Order dated 5. 12. 1988 the condition contemplated is of investment, The word 'investment' has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary as: "an expenditure to acquire property or other assets in order to produce revenue. The placing of capital or laying out of money in way intended to secure income or profit from its employment. " chambers 20th Century Dictionary defines "invest" as follows: To Lay out money, make a purchase. " ( 5 ) IN commercial sense as well as in popular sense the word 'investment' relates to spending the money on capital assets which may be in the form of movable or immovable property. The meaning which is given to the word in ordinary popular sense as considered by the business men has to be taken into consideration. In TOOTAL BROADHURST LEE CO LTD it was observed: "the meaning of investment, is not its meaning in the vernacular of the man in the street but in the vernacular of the businessman. The meaning which is given to the word in ordinary popular sense as considered by the business men has to be taken into consideration. In TOOTAL BROADHURST LEE CO LTD it was observed: "the meaning of investment, is not its meaning in the vernacular of the man in the street but in the vernacular of the businessman. It is form of income-yielding property which the businessman looking at the total assets of the company would single out as an investment. . . The businessman would not limit income from investments to income from the kinds of securities which are quoted on the stock exchange, and he would, I think regard as income from investment a profitable rent from a sub-lease of office premises, or the like, surplus to the company's requirement. . . . " In IRC v. ROLLS ROYCE LTD. , the word "investment" was considered and it was observed: "the word investment though it primarily means the act of investing, is in common use as meaning that which is thereby acquired; and the primary meaning of the transitive verb "to invest" is to lay out money in the acquisition of some species of property. . . . . " ( 6 ) THE position in India is also the same and the word 'invest' has to be interpreted as an expenditure to the capital asset which an enterprenur invests for earning the income. It may be the land, building or machinery. This actual investment in the fixed asset is the only criterion in the notification referred to above, and it is not the sanction of the loan by a financial institution which is relevant. Loan may be sanctioned at any point of time or a person may not even avail the benefit of loan from the financial institution. The view of the respondent denying the exemption on the ground that the loan was sanctioned prior to first of April, 1988 is not in consonance with the notification issued and as such the same is hereby quashed. The respondent would be free to examine as to when the actual investment was made and if the actual investment has been made after 1. 4. 1988, the benefit of the notification dated 7. 6. 1988 may be given to the petitioner. The petition is allowed with the above observations. The respondent would be free to examine as to when the actual investment was made and if the actual investment has been made after 1. 4. 1988, the benefit of the notification dated 7. 6. 1988 may be given to the petitioner. The petition is allowed with the above observations. The petitioner would be free to satisfy the respondent with regard to the correct amount of investment in respect of the plant and machinery also which is alleged to the incorrect in the certificate already issued.