JUDGMENT P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Dr. A.K. Saraf, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent. 2. The petitioner before us is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing polymers and rubber chemicals. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 8.5.1997, 15.7.1997 and 2.9.1997 for recovery of certain amounts mentioned in the writ petition. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief, is that the Government of Assam introduced the new Industrial Policy in the year 1982 and the said policy was extended from time to time and the matter is in respect of the Industrial Policy of 1991. Under the 1991 Industrial Policy certain units covered by the policy were entitled to exemption from the payment of sale tax on purchase of raw materials as well as on sale of finished products for a period of five years. Thereafter, pursuant to the said policy decision, the State of Assam issued the notification, known as the Assam Industries (Sales Tax) Concession Scheme, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Scheme'), granting relief of sale tax exemption on purchase of raw materials within the State of Assam. The Scheme came into force with effect from 1.4.91 and it further provided that the eligible units shall be entitled to purchase raw materials free of taxes after 16.8.95 on furnishing of declaration form as provided for in the Scheme. It also provided that the tax already paid on raw materials prior to 16.8.95 by the eligible units shall be refunded. 4. Under the Industrial Policy the District Industries Centre/Udyog Sahayak was the competent authority to issue eligibility certificate. The case of the petitioner company is that they sold goods (raw materials) to such eligible units and in view of the eligibility certificate produced by these units, no sale tax was charged by the petitioner company. The respondent State has now issued the impugned notice demanding tax from the petitioner company although no such tax was collected by them. 5. In the present case, the respondent State has not filed any affidavit-in-opposition. However, we find that there is no dispute at the Bar that the petitioner company had sold the goods (raw materials) to the eligible units only who have been granted eligibility certificate by the competent authority. The petitioner company also did not collect any sales tax from these units. However, we find that there is no dispute at the Bar that the petitioner company had sold the goods (raw materials) to the eligible units only who have been granted eligibility certificate by the competent authority. The petitioner company also did not collect any sales tax from these units. The bone of contention is regarding the absence of any specific provisions under the Scheme although the Scheme provides that in case any eligible unit has paid or deposited any taxes on purchase of raw material or sale of finished products for the period from 1.4.1991 to 16.8.1995, they shall be entitled to refund. However, the Scheme is silent as regards the cases where taxes were not paid by the eligible units on the strength of eligibility certificate issued by the appropriate authority or in respect of the firms who sold goods used as raw materials by these eligible units. 6. The spirit of the Scheme as well as the perspective of the Industrial Policy is very clear. The eligible units are not liable to pay sale tax on purchase of raw materials and also on sale of finished products. 7. In the present case, we are not concerned with the sale of products by the eligible units. So the matter relates to purchase of raw materials by the eligible units and the Scheme is very specific that the eligible units are not liable to pay tax with effect from 1.4.91 and if any taxes have been paid during the period from 1.4.91 to 16.8.95, they shall be entitled to refund. 8. In the present case the three notices issued to the petitioner are in respect of the period from 1.4.91 to 16.8.95. As stated above the petitioner company had sold goods to eligible units only who had used the same as raw material. As the eligibility certificates were produced by these purchasers, the petitioner company did not charge any tax. Even if any tax would have been charged by the petitioner, the Government would have been duty bound under the scheme to refund the amount to the purchasers. Thus the Government does not have to refund if the petitioner did not collect tax from these purchasers for raw materials. The absence of any specific provisions in the Scheme shall not however stand in the way of making a technical demand. Thus the Government does not have to refund if the petitioner did not collect tax from these purchasers for raw materials. The absence of any specific provisions in the Scheme shall not however stand in the way of making a technical demand. In case the petitioners are directed to deposit the taxes, they will be entitled to claim the same from the eligible industrial units, i.e. the purchasers and in turn these purchasers will be entitled to claim refund under the Scheme itself. The Government will not be a beneficiary in any case and this will be a futile exercise as there is no specific provision under the Scheme in this regard. In the absence of any allegation whatsoever, that the petitioner company sold goods to ineligible purchasers without collecting taxes, the petitioner company is not liable to pay taxes on the sale of goods to the eligible units. 9. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the impugned demand notices, etc., stands quashed. No order as to cost.