JUDGMENT V. K. SINGHAL, J. - Petitioner has prayed for sales tax exemption certificate for the period February 8, 1992 to November 6, 1993. The unit was manufacturing mini computers, etc. Central Excise licence was granted on January 16, 1992. It is stated that the manufacturing activities were carried on in Multi Storied Complex, Hebagodi, Hosur Road, Bangalore. State Investment subsidy is also stated to have been granted. Petitioner was also asked by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Bangalore vide letter dated March 20, 1992 to produce the evidence for shifting of the unit from Sheshadripuram to Electronic City. The first respondent refused to register the petitioner for incentive packages unless permission for change of location is obtained from the Government of India. It is stated that the package for incentives and concessions to the new industrial units vide Government Order dated October 30, 1982 was for five years, i.e., up to October 30, 1987 but continued till March 31, 1988. New package for incentives and concessions was issued on December 5, 1988 for five years effective from April 1, 1988. Thereafter vide Government order dated September 27, 1990, concessions for five years from October 1, 1990 to September 30, 1995 was given. Government of Karnataka issued notification under section 8-A of Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 on June 19, 1991 giving 100 per cent exemption under Karnataka Sales Tax Act as well as Central Sales Tax Act in respect of units situated in Zone II Electronic City. According to the petitioner the production commenced on February 8, 1992 and discontinued on November 6, 1993 and exemption is claimed on the basis of the Government Order dated June 19, 1991. It is pointed out that necessary evidence was submitted vide letter dated October 3, 1994 to the effect that the petitioner was carrying on the business in the Electronic City during the relevant period. The prayer of the petitioner to grant exemption was refused on the ground that the unit should be under working condition and engaged in manufacture of registered end-product. Petitioner was advised vide letter dated November 25, 1994 to start regular production. Since the unit was not working it was stated vide letter dated December 17, 1994 that the exemption would not be given. 2. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Petitioner was advised vide letter dated November 25, 1994 to start regular production. Since the unit was not working it was stated vide letter dated December 17, 1994 that the exemption would not be given. 2. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been heard. In the notification dated June 19, 1991, the exemption is for a period of four years. It is not contemplated that the unit must be in existence for four years only then the exemption is to be given. If a particular unit has functioned for a lesser period, the exemption can be given for that period. At this stage I would not like to go into the question as to whether the petitioner has actually carried on the manufacturing activity at Electronic City and if so for what period. It is for the respondent to find out and satisfy themselves with the evidence which the petitioner may produce. If it is found that the unit has worked during the period February 8, 1992 to November 6, 1993 as claimed by the petitioner, and stopped production subsequently, then exemption for the period the unit carried on its manufacturing activity, necessary certificate be granted. Petitioner would appear before respondents 1 and 2 on March 8, 1999 and the assessment proceedings would be taken after final decision by respondents No. 1/2. Petition stands allowed with the above observations. Petition allowed.