A. ROY, J.— The subject matter of challenge in this batch of writ petitions are the orders dated 28.10.98 passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Jalukbari Check Post, Guwahati, respondent No. 2, assessing the petitioner company U/s. 17(4) of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 1993 Act) read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the' 1956 Act') for the period ending 31.3.92 to 1997-98 as well as the consequential notices of demand on the basis thereof. As common questions of law have arisen, the petitions were analogously heard and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the relevant facts would be culled out from the pleadings available in Civil Rule No. 6205/98. 2.1 have heard Dr. A.K. Saraf, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.K. Agarwal for the petitioners and Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned State counsel for the respondents. 3. Shortly put, the facts leading to the filing of the petitions as narrated therein are that the petitioner, a Private Limited Company owns M/s. Mahabir Coke Industry, an industrial unit situated at Beltola, in the district of Kamrup, Assam, Guwahati. The said unit is a small scale industrial unit and its production commenced from 2.10.85. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and processing of Coal into Coke. In the year 1982, the Government of Assam announced an industrial policy vide notification dated 12.10.82 offering various incentives including exemption from payment of sales tax on purchase of raw materials as well as on sale of finished products for a period of 5 years to the new industrial units established in the state. The petitioners unit being a new industrial unit as contemplated under the 1982 Incentive Scheme, applied for an eligibility certificate and the same was accordingly issued by Udyog Sahayak, granting sales tax exemption from 2.10.85 to 1.10.90. The petitioner company was therefore exempted from paying sales tax for a period of 5 years under the 1982 industrial policy read with the provisions of Assam Industries(Sales Tax Concession) Act, 1986. 4. Another Policy was announced by the Government of Assam in the year 1991 which was made effective from 1.4.91. The petitioner company was therefore exempted from paying sales tax for a period of 5 years under the 1982 industrial policy read with the provisions of Assam Industries(Sales Tax Concession) Act, 1986. 4. Another Policy was announced by the Government of Assam in the year 1991 which was made effective from 1.4.91. Under the said policy the Government announced various incentives including exemption from payment of sales tax for a period of 7 years to the new industrial units as well as the existing industrial units undertaking expansion, modernisation and diversification on or after 1.4.91. The exemption was available on the purchase of raw material to be used in the manufacture of finished products as well as on the sale of finished products within the State as well as in course of inter-state trade and commerce. 5. The petitioner's unit which was an existing unit under the 1982, policy/Scheme being inspired by the above mentioned incentive scheme evolved by the Government in the year 1991, undertook expansion works in its said unit and made additional investments in conformity with the norms laid down in the industrial policy and applied for the eligibility certificate before the appropriate authority who after being satisfied that all norms for issuance thereof had been fulfilled, issued the eligibility certificate bearing No. DIC(US)/84/ 93/79 dated 17.5.94 granting exemption amongst others from payment of sales tax with effect from 1.12.91 to 30.11.98. 6. However, inspite of above, the respondent No. 2 the Superintendent of Taxes, Jalukbari Check Post, Guwahati issued notice dated 19.4.94 directing the petitioner to produce the books of accounts and documents for the period ending 31.3.92 to 30,6.93. In response to the said notice, the petitioner submitted a copy of the eligibility certificate whereby it was granted exemption from payment of sales tax from 1.12.91 to 30.11.98. As the authorisation certificate to avail the benefit of the sales tax exemption was not issued, the petitioner on 20.7.94 addressed a communication to the Superintendent of Taxes, respondent No. 2 requesting the said authority to issue the authorisation certificate so as to enable the petitioner to avail the benefit of sales tax exemption under the 1991 policy. A request was also made to the said authority in the above circumstances not to proceed with the assessment. A request was also made to the said authority in the above circumstances not to proceed with the assessment. The respondent No. 2 on one hand did not take any action for issuing the authorisation certificate and on the other informed the petitioner that there was no provision for grant of exemption from payment of sales tax under the 1991 policy and no exemption would be granted in respect of sales made in course of interstate trade and commerce and that the assessment would be completed summarily and thereafter tax would be levied. 7. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this court with an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was registered as Civil Rule No. 34377 94. By order dated 3.9.94, the writ petition was admitted and the operation of the impugned notice dated 19.4.94 was suspended. This court further observed that in case any assessment Had been made, no amount would be realised on the basis thereof. 8. While the matter rested at that, the Government of Assam in exercise of its powers U/s. 9(4) of the 1993 Act read with Clause(f) of Sub-section(3) of Section 74 thereof framed a scheme known as Assam Industrial(Sales Tax Concession) Scheme, 1995(hereinafter referred to as the 'Scheme') and notified the same by notification dated 16.8.95. The scheme granted relief by way of sales tax exemption on the purchase of raw materials as well as on the sale of finished products in the State or in the course of inter state trade and commerce. The scheme which came into effect from 1.4.91, however provided that the exemption would be restricted to the increase in production due to expansion, modernisation or diversification. As the provisions of the new scheme were perceived to be contrary to those in the Industrial Policy of 1991 and having an adverse bearing on the entitlements of the petitioner regarding exemption, it filed an amendment petition in Civil Rule No. 34377 94 for incorporating necessary amendments in the writ petition for challenging the legality and validity of the provisions of the scheme. This writ application was eventually dismissed by judgment and order dated 28.5.98. The petitioner preferred an appeal, being Writ Appeal No. 155/98 against the same. This court by order dated 22.6.98 admitted the appeal and stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and order. 9. This writ application was eventually dismissed by judgment and order dated 28.5.98. The petitioner preferred an appeal, being Writ Appeal No. 155/98 against the same. This court by order dated 22.6.98 admitted the appeal and stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and order. 9. In the meantime, the respondent No. 2 had issued another notice on 27.11.96 directing the petitioner to show cause as to why it should not be prosecuted for having failed to make payment of Rs. 45,694,6857-by way of tax under the 1956 Act. The petitioner inter alia pointed out that no assessment proceeding had been initiated and therefore the notice without completion of -such assessment proceeding was arbitrary and illegal. The fact that the petitioners unit was exempted from payment of sales tax upto 30.11.98 and that this court had earlier stayed the operation of the notice relating to the proposed assessment of tax was also highlighted in its reply. The petitioner, was thereafter informed by the notice dated 17.12.96 that the action proposed to be taken in terms of the notice dated 27.11.96 had been temporarily suspended. The petitioner was however directed to produce necessary evidence to satisfy the assessing authority about the correctness and completeness of its returns submitted for the assessment year 1984-85(sic) to 1995-96 along with the documentary evidence that it had not committed any offence U/s. 60 and 61 of the 1993 Act read with Section 9(2) of the 1956 Act and that further it had not charged and realised tax from its customers. 10. The above notice was followed by another dated i-7.4.97 issued by the same authority directing the petitioner to submit an application for authorisation certificate along with the eligibility certificate as provided under the 1995 Scheme observing that otherwise the claim for tax exemption under the Scheme would not be entertained. In its reply submitted on 28.4.97, the petitioner informed the said authority that it had already submitted an application for the authorisation certificate before him on 5.9.95. The petitioner further informed the said authority that it had already applied for the eligibility certificate under the 1995 Scheme on 28.3.96 and that the same was under process. Thereafter the respondent No. 2 by notice dated 3.5.97 directed the petitioner company to produce its books of accounts for the assessment year 1994-95 and 1995-96 in support of its return. The petitioner further informed the said authority that it had already applied for the eligibility certificate under the 1995 Scheme on 28.3.96 and that the same was under process. Thereafter the respondent No. 2 by notice dated 3.5.97 directed the petitioner company to produce its books of accounts for the assessment year 1994-95 and 1995-96 in support of its return. The petitioner informed the said authority in response to the said notice that the books of accounts were under verification by the Income Tax Authorities and prayed for some time for production thereof. 11. Subsequent thereto by notice dated 9.5.97 issued by the respondent No. 2 the petitioner was directed to show cause as to why the sum of Rs. 2,36,97,3467- should not be demanded from it on the ground that the same was collected by way of central sales tax at the rate of 4% but the same had not been deposited in the Government Account. The petitioner submitted its reply thereto on 26.5.97 where it inter alia contended that the notice had been issued based on inferences and not on facts and that too without affording any opportunity to it to go through the books of account and to explain the position. It was further pointed out that the charge against the petitioner of having collected Central Sales Tax from the assessment year 1990-91 to 1996-97 clearly revealed that it was framed in a wholly mechanical manner and without application of mind. The petitioner was thereafter directed by notice dated 30.7.97 to furnish the detailed addresses of the sellers of raw material(coal) along with their Central Sales Tax registration numbers. It was also directed to provide a copy of the order of supply of Coal placed with the sellers by the petitioner. The necessary information were furnished to the respondent No. 2 by the petitioner on 7.8.97. The petitioner was thereafter by notice dated 12.8.97 directed to show cause as to why it should not be charged for giving false statement U/s. 60 of the 1993 Act read with Sec. 25(6) of the Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1956 on the ground that the petitioner had purchased coal from persons other than the commission agents and that the identity of such sellers had been kept in dark. The allegations were denied by the petitioner in its reply dated 26.8.97. The allegations were denied by the petitioner in its reply dated 26.8.97. Eventually by notice dated 9.6.98 issued by the respondent No. 2 the petitioner was informed that the reply submitted by it on 26.5.97 with regard to collection of Central Sales Tax was not acceptable and it was directed to appear before the said authority with necessary written statement in the matter. The petitioner submitted its reply on 28.8.98 asserting therein that it had sold the finished products without charging any tax. However, from some of the parties who were ready to pay tax, it collected the same and deposited it in the Government treasury. Its categorical stand was that it had by 30.9.96 deposited a sum of Rs. 40,37,039.46 on account of Central Sales Tax. It further contended that it had paid local taxes on the raw materials purchased by it and after adjustment of such taxes paid by the petitioner against the tax collected by it, a sum of Rs. 40,67,5607- was still refundable to the petitioner U/s. 15(b) of the 1956 Act as well as under the scheme. 12. It was at this stage that by the impugned • orders the respondent No. 2 completed the assessment U/s. 17(4) of the 1993 Act read with Section 9(2) of the 1956 Act and tax was levied at the rate of 8% on the total turnover on the ground that the petitioner had failed to produce the relevant C Forms against the inter-state sales. The tax was levied on the ground that the petitioner had collected sales tax from the customers but had not deposited the same in the Government account. Pursuant to the said orders of assessment, a demand notice were issued directing payment of the demand on or before 5.12.98. 13. In the counter filed on behalf of the respondents it has been inter alia contended that the writ petition is not maintainable as alternative remedies by way of appeal and revision are available against the orders of assessment impugned in the instant proceedings, while admitting that the petitioner had been granted sales tax exemption for the period of 5 years from 2.5.85 to 1.10.90 it was asserted that thereafter the 1993 Act was enacted and the provision for exemption of sales tax to a dealer was contained in Section 9(4) thereof. The State Govt. The State Govt. was empowered U/s. 9(4) of the 1993 Act to frame schemes by publishing notification in the official gazette granting exemption from payment of tax thereunder to any class of industries within the State. Accordingly, the Assam Industries (Sales Tax Concession) Scheme 1995 was published vide notification dated 16.8.95 U/ s. 74(3 )(f) of the said Act. The answering respondents therefore, contended that the issue with regard to grant of sales tax exemption to the petitioner was to be guided and regulated by the provisions of the 1993 Act and the 1995 Scheme. According to them, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to exemption from payment of sales tax only on fulfilling of all the conditions as mentioned in 1995 Scheme and on filing of the application in Form II-B furnishing the necessary informations as contained therein. According to them, the eligibility certificate dated 17.5.94 issued by the Udyog Sahayak did not ipso facto make the petitioner eligible for granting authorisation certificate by the Tax Authority. They maintained that the petitioner had applied in Form 1(A) instead of Form II-B as required under the 1995 Scheme. As the petitioner was thus not entitled to be issued the authorisation certificate on the basis of the eligibility certificate dated 17.5.94, the petitioner was not entitled to any sales tax exemption, it was alleged that the petitioner had evaded payment of tax collected on sale of coke in the course of inter state trade and commerce. Moreover, as exemption was granted conditionally under the 1993 Act, payment of Central Sales Tax was not exempted. Further the petitioner purchased coal as the basic raw material and no exemption was allowed on the said items under Rule 2(f) of the Assam Industries(Sales Tax Concession) Rules 1988. The petitioner was found not entitled to get any authorisation certificate exempting it from payment of sales tax and, therefore, the notice dated 19.4.94 issued U/s. 9(2) of the 1956 Act was legal and valid. 14. Supporting the notice dated 27.11.96 the answering respondents contended that the same was issued as it transpired on the verification of the books of accounts of the petitioner that it had committed an offence U/ s. 59,60 and 61 of the 1993 Act read with Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 Act and had evaded tax on the tune of Rs. 4,56,94,6857-. 4,56,94,6857-. The notice dated 9.5.97 was sought to be justified on the ground that the petitioner inspite of charging and realising the Central Sales Tax had not deposited the same in the Govt. account. On receiving the reply dated 26.5.97 of the petitioner denying collection of such tax, it was asked to furnish detailed addresses of its sellers with their Registration Certificate Numbers to verify the correctness of the statements made in the said reply. In the enquiry that was made on the basis of the addresses furnished by the petitioner, it appeared that the suppliers named by the petitioner were fictitious. It was thereafter, according to the answering respondents, that the notice dated 12.8.97 was issued. With reference to some bills annexed to the affidavit, the answering respondents alleged that the petitioner charged sales tax @ 6% while raising its bill on M/s. Carbon Ever Flow Ltd. Nasik. It also realised Central Sales Tax @4% from M/s. H.E.R Ltd., Bhopal. It was further alleged that the petitioner raised two bills against a single transaction bearing same account number and date, one charging tax meant for its purchasers and the other without charging tax .to be submitted before the department. Two documents being Annexure C-l and C-2 have been annexed in support of the said averment. According to the respondents, therefore, the reply dated 26.5.97 of the petitioner was found to be not acceptable and accordingly the notice dated 9.6.98 was issued. With regard to the stand taken by the petitioner that it had collected Rs. 62,88,150.33 from its customers as Central Sales Tax during 1995-96, the answering respondents stated that the Central Sales Tax amount shown to have been deposited for the period from 1.10.91 to 30.6.93(excluding from 1.4.92 to 30.6.92) had been adjusted against the assessment for the respective periods. However, the amount for the period from 1.4.92 to 30.6.92 could not be adjusted as the Bank Draft depositing the amount for the said period was not available in the records. The respondents reiterated that the petitioner after manufacturing and processing the raw materials i.e., Coal into Coke, sold the finished products in course of inter state trade and commerce to various traders/parties realising the Central Sales Tax from them but it did not deposit any tax against such sales. The respondents reiterated that the petitioner after manufacturing and processing the raw materials i.e., Coal into Coke, sold the finished products in course of inter state trade and commerce to various traders/parties realising the Central Sales Tax from them but it did not deposit any tax against such sales. According to them, the provision of Section 15(b) of the Act was not attracted in the present case and the claim for refund on the basis thereof was not tenable. Besides, as the petitioner did not submit any C Torm as required U/s. 8(4) of the 1956 Act, read with Rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax Rules, no benefit of declared goods was available to it. The amount of Rs. 40,37,039.46 said to have been deposited by the petitioner related to the period ending 30.9.90 which is much before the period involved in the present petitions^ Moreover, the amount so deposited had already been adjusted against the corresponding periods/ years. It was further contended that the Civil Rule No. 3537/94 was on a different footing and even if exemption under the 1991 policy to the petitioner is conceded it would not amount to granting exemption from Central Sales Tax as the exemption under the 1995 Scheme was a conditional one. It was thus asserted that as the petitioner had collected Central Sales Tax from different parties it was bound to deposit the same in the Government Account and the same having not been done the respondents were fully justified in taking the impugned decision. 15. The petitioner submitted a reply to the counter of the respondents where it asserted that as the impugned order of assessment was illegal and without jurisdiction, besides being violative of the principles of natural justice, the instant writ petition was thus maintainable even in face of any alternative remedy available to it. It contended that as it had challenged the validity of the provisions of the 1995 Scheme in Civil Rule No. 3437/94 and thereafter had carried the challenge in Writ Appeal No. 155/98, the question of applying for the eligibility certificate under the Scheme did not arise. It contended that as it had challenged the validity of the provisions of the 1995 Scheme in Civil Rule No. 3437/94 and thereafter had carried the challenge in Writ Appeal No. 155/98, the question of applying for the eligibility certificate under the Scheme did not arise. According to it, the eligibility certificate what was issued under the 1991 Industrial Policy had conferred on it a legal right which could not have been taken away subsequently by a notification under the 1993 Act and it was thus entitled to be issued the authorisation certificate granting sales tax exemption from 1.12.91 to 30.11.98. The Civil Rule 3437/94 was infact filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to grant sales tax exemption for the period from 1.12.91 to 30.11.98. However, since the writ application was filed in the year 1994 and at that point of time notices for the period ending 31.3.92, 30.9.92, 31.3.93 and 30.6.93 had only been issued by the respondent No. 2 for completion of the assessment, this court stayed the operation of the said notices and directed that no assessment would be made and in case any assessment had been made, no tax should be realised from the petitioner. As the issue in Civil Rule No. 3437/94 involved the question of grant of sales tax exemption to the petitioner for the period of 7 years on the basis of the eligibility certificate issued to it under the 1991 Industrial Policy, the petitioner contended that it was not open for the respondent No. 2 to complete the impugned assessment in view of the interim order passed by this court. The allegation that the petitioner had collected Rs.2,30,90,346/- as Central Sales Tax was denied. It reiterated that the tax collected by it from the customers had been duly deposited. With reference to the instance of M/s. MEF Ltd., Bhopal, it was contended that though the agreement with it provided for payment of 4% Central Sales Tax, in fact no such tax was charged by the petitioner. The bills annexed as C-1 and C-2 were not issued by the petitioner. With reference to the instance of M/s. MEF Ltd., Bhopal, it was contended that though the agreement with it provided for payment of 4% Central Sales Tax, in fact no such tax was charged by the petitioner. The bills annexed as C-1 and C-2 were not issued by the petitioner. With regard to the Form 'C' the stand of the petitioner in its reply is that it had submitted a number of declarations in Form 'C' for the period from 1.10.90 to 31.3.93 but for the subsequent periods it was not afforded any opportunity to produce the 'C' Forms though those are in its possession. It reiterated that Section 15(b) of the 1956 Act was attracted in the instant case, inasmuch as, Coal and Coke being declared commodities, local taxes paid on the purchase of raw materials are to be reimbursed to the person making the sales in course of inter­state trade and commerce. The petitioner maintained that in the 1995 Scheme, exemption had been granted from payment of Central Sales Tax in view of Section 8(5) of the 1956 Act. The stand of the petitioner in the alternative is that assuming that a dealer had collected the tax but has not deposited the same in the Government Account, during the period of exemption, the only course open to the assessing authority is to initiate a proceeding U/s. 65 A of the 1993 Act for the forfeiture of the tax so collected. But the Assessing Authority would not have the power to make assessment and levy tax during the period of exemption on the ground that on some of the sales, the dealer had collected tax. Further simply because on some transactions tax had been collected it cannot be inferred that on all the transactions tax was realised. Instead each and every transaction will have to be independently examined in a forfeiture proceeding. The petitioner reiterated that the four suppliers, the particulars whereof it had furnished to the respondent authorities were assessees, with Bank Accounts and that the allegation that they were fictitious was wholly baseless. 16. Dr. A.K. Saraf, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has advanced three fold arguments. The petitioner reiterated that the four suppliers, the particulars whereof it had furnished to the respondent authorities were assessees, with Bank Accounts and that the allegation that they were fictitious was wholly baseless. 16. Dr. A.K. Saraf, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has advanced three fold arguments. Firstly, the petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of sales tax both under the 1993 Act and the 1956 Act and the Scheme and therefore, the contention of the State respondents that it is not entitled to benefits of exemption from Central Sales Tax is wholly untenable. Secondly, according to the learned Senior counsel as the petitioner is exempted from payment of sales tax under both the enactments, assuming that the Central Sales Tax as alleged by the State respondents had been collected by it, the procedure warranted is prescribed under Section 65 A of the 1993 Act for forfeiture of the amount of tax so collected, Dr. Saraf, however, maintained that in case the state respondents decided to embark upon that exercise, even then, it would have been incumbent on them to examine and scrutinise each and every transaction to ascertain the amount of tax so collected to be forfeited under that provision of law. In such a case also, according to the learned Senior counsel, it would still not be open for the State respondents to make the entire turnover liable on detection of unauthorised collection of tax in some transactions. As in the instant case, according ! to him, while making the impugned demand, the respondent No. 2 did neither resort to the procedure prescribed U/s. 65 A of the 1993 Act nor had verified each and every transaction for which allegedly the Central Sales Tax had been collected by the petitioner, the same is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Thirdly, the impugned orders are, following a purported assessment U/s. 17(4) of 1993 Act read with Section 9(2) of the 1956 Act, and having regard to the vague and omnibus findings contained therein, those are clearly unsustainable in law and/on facts. Besides, keeping in view the allegation that the petitioner had collected the Central Sales Tax but had evaded the payment thereof, Section 17(4) of the 1993 Act and Section 9(2) of the 1956 Act were not attracted and on that ground as well, the impugned orders are patently illegal and without any authority of law. Consequently, Dr. Besides, keeping in view the allegation that the petitioner had collected the Central Sales Tax but had evaded the payment thereof, Section 17(4) of the 1993 Act and Section 9(2) of the 1956 Act were not attracted and on that ground as well, the impugned orders are patently illegal and without any authority of law. Consequently, Dr. Saraf contended that the demand notices which were issued on the basis of the impugned orders are liable to be adjudged, illegal and honest in law. In support of his submissions, Dr. Saraf has placed reliance on the following decisions. 1. M/s. Pine Chemicals Ltd. and others, Appellant -Vs-Assessing Authority and others, Respondents, reported in (1992) 2 SCC 683 . 2. Commissioner of Sales Tax, J & K and others, Petitioners - Vs- Pine Chemicals Ltd and ors, Respondents, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 58 . 3. Manjushree Extrusions Ltd. and Anr, Appellants -Vs- State of Assam & ors, Respondents, reported in 2001(1) GLT 430/(2001) 2 GLR 218. 17. Mr. B.J. Taludkar, learned State counsel prayed for a week's time to file written argument which was allowed. However, till date the learned State counsel has not submitted the same. Considering the fact that the cases are of the year 1998,1 am not inclined to delay the disposal thereof any further. However, while adjudicating the issues involved in the present proceeding the stand of the State respondents as put forward in their counter has been taken note of. 18. The issues which thus surface from the pleadings of the parties and the submissions made can be para-phrases thus. 1. Are the writ petitions maintainable for the alternative remedies available to it under the enactments involved? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the exemption from payment of sales tax under the above mentioned Acts in view of the Scheme? 3. If yes, whether the impugned assessment and demand made U/s. 17(4) of the 1993 Act, read with Section 9(2) of the 1956 Act is sustainable? 4. Whether the impugned assessment order is otherwise sustainable in law and on facts in view of the omnibus nature of the findings and conclusions as recorded therein? The writ petitions having been filed in the year 1998 and pending since then, I am not inclined to non suit the petitioner on the plea of availability of alternative remedy. This issue is thus answered in the negative. The writ petitions having been filed in the year 1998 and pending since then, I am not inclined to non suit the petitioner on the plea of availability of alternative remedy. This issue is thus answered in the negative. The next issue with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner to enjoy exemption from payment of sales tax under the Scheme need not detain this court for long. The decision of this court rendered in Manjushree Extrusions Ltd(supra) has set at rest all controversies relating thereto. A batch of appeals preferred against the common judgment and order dated 29.4.98 passed in the corresponding writ petitions upholding the validity of the scheme were disposed of by this decision. One of the appeals so disposed is Writ Appeal No. 1557 98 referred to hereinabove while narrating the case of the petitioner. The appellants therein which includes the present petitioner had approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity of the scheme inter alia on the ground that it curtailed the benefits of sales tax exemption provided in the 1991 Industrial Policy. It was contended therein that the appellants were industrial units and were in production prior to 1.4.91 and had undertaken expansion, modernisation and diversification thereof and though they have been enjoying the benefit of full sales tax exemption under the 1991 Industrial Policy with the introduction of the scheme, the said benefit was curtailed, inasmuch as, the sales tax exemption was confined to the part of the production which had increased due to such expansion etc. 19. The Division Bench which heard the appeals was divided in its opinion. The matter, therefore, was referred to the third Judge and eventually per majority it was held that both the new units and the existing units were eligible to sales tax exemption limit in its entirety whether it be on purchase of raw materials or sale of finished products. The contention raised on behalf of the State that in terms of the scheme, the sales tax exemption would be available to the industrial units to the extent only to which expansion was made by them was negatived. While reaching the said conclusion, it was noticed that the eligibility certificate to the appellants(which were existing units) had been granted to avail the benefit of exemption under the 1991 policy for a period of 7 years. While reaching the said conclusion, it was noticed that the eligibility certificate to the appellants(which were existing units) had been granted to avail the benefit of exemption under the 1991 policy for a period of 7 years. It was thus held in essence that the scheme was in continuation of the 1991 Industrial Policy and therefore the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the scheme and that the eligibility certificate issued in favour of the appellants under the 1991 policy had created enforceable rights in them and consequently the benefit under the said policy could not be curtailed by the scheme. 20. In view of the above dicta of this court, there is no room to contend that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of exemption under the scheme. 21. Before I part with this issue it would be apposite to make a brief reference of the scheme. It contemplates three types of industrial units eligible to avail the benefit thereunder. Category-B contemplates an industrial unit having its Registered office within the State of Assam which is or was in production at any time prior to 1.4.91, undertaking expansion, modernisation, diversification to the minimum extent of 25% at the same location or at other places of the State of Assam and with an additional employment at least by 10% and is in compliance with the criteria on the industrial units employing the people of Assam. The petitioner satisfies this description. Part-1 of the scheme provides for full exemption of sales tax on the purchase or raw materials within the State of Assam by the eligible industrial units situated within the State of Assam and also on the sale of finished products, manufactured in such eligible units in the State of Assam or in the course of inter state trade and commerce. The scheme which has been given effect to from 1.4.91 under the above part also provides for refund of sales tax paid by the eligible industrial units in course of purchase of the permitted raw materials. With regard to the finished products, the eligible industrial units are competent to sell the same in the State of Assam or in course of inter state trade and commerce without paying any tax under the 1993 Act, However, if any tax is collected on such sales the same would have to be deposited into the Government treasury. 22. With regard to the finished products, the eligible industrial units are competent to sell the same in the State of Assam or in course of inter state trade and commerce without paying any tax under the 1993 Act, However, if any tax is collected on such sales the same would have to be deposited into the Government treasury. 22. Part-II of the scheme grants exemption from payment of sales tax under the 1956 Act in respect of goods manufactured by the eligible units in the State of Assam and sold in course of interstate trade and commerce. However, if any tax is collected, the same has to be deposited into the Govt. Treasury. 23. On a reading of the said Scheme, without however dilating on the details thereof, it is apparent that there under the eligible industrial units are granted exemption of sales tax for transactions covered by both the enactments. In other words, the eligible industrial units under the scheme have been granted the benefit of exemption from payment of the sales tax under the 1993 Act as well as the Central Sales Tax 1956 Act during the currency of the Scheme. In view of the decision in Manjushree Extrusions Ltd. and Anr -Vs- State of Assam & Ors(supra) the petitioner is thus entitled to the aforementioned benefits under the scheme. I am, therefore, inclined to uphold the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner on this issue. 24. Before taking up the other issues for consideration it would be profitable to refer to the decisions of the Apex Court cited by Dr. Saraf. 25. In M/s. Pine Chemicals Ltd. and others -Vs- Assessing Authority and others (supra), one of the contentions raised was that, as in the assessment order involved therein there was a finding that the assessee had collected sales tax in respect of its sales turnover for which exemption was claimed, the said amount was refundable u/s. 8(B) of the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962. The Apex Court while leaving the question of applicability of Section 8(B) in that case open, held that in view of its finding that the sales involved were exempted, the question, whether the assessee had collected any tax and whether the amount was collected by way of tax and whether any element of sales tax had merged in the fixation of the price and that amounts to collection of sales tax, would have to be U/s. 8(B) of the said Act or if the State demands payment, under the said provision of the Act. 26. This decision has been relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner understandably to reinforce his argument that, as the petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of sales tax under both the Acts, any question as to whether any amount had been collected, inspite of such exemption and if so, what is the amount and whether it had been collected as tax etc. cannot be looked into in a normal assessment proceeding but only in a proceeding initiated U/s. 65 A of the 1993 Act providing for forfeiture of such amount if collected in the contingencies narrated herein. 27. In Commissioner of Sales Tax, J & K and others -Vs- Pine Chemicals Ltd. and Ors(supra), an application for review of the abovementioned judgment in M/s. Pine Chemical Ltd. and others -Vs- Assessing Authority and others(supra) was filed. Though the Apex Court partially reviewed its said decision, the above aspect pertaining to refund U/s. 8(B) of the J & K General Sales Tax Act, 1962 and its decision relating thereto was not touched. The Apex Court while dealing with the review application vis-a-vis Section 8(2-A) of the 1956 Act held that the said sub­section does not say that wherever a particular sale or purchase of goods is exempt from tax under the State enactment, it would equally be exempt from tax under the Central enactment. Such sales or purchase of goods to be exempted from tax under the Central enactment should be exempt from tax generally under the State enactment. 28. The above decision, however, does not pose any hindrance for the petitioner, inasmuch as, under the scheme it is entitled to exemption from the Central Sales Tax as well. Such sales or purchase of goods to be exempted from tax under the Central enactment should be exempt from tax generally under the State enactment. 28. The above decision, however, does not pose any hindrance for the petitioner, inasmuch as, under the scheme it is entitled to exemption from the Central Sales Tax as well. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to this decision only to emphasis the fact that the dicta of the Apex Court in Pine Chemicals Ltd. and ors-Vs-Assessing Authority and others(supra) with regard to the issue of refund U/s. 8(B) of the Jammu and Kashmir Act was not reviewed by it. 29. The clear and categorical assertion in the impugned assessment orders as well as in the counter of the State respondents is that the petitioner in course of its transactions had collected Central Sales Tax, but had not deposited the same. In view of the facility of exemption from sales tax which the petitioner had been enjoying in law under the scheme, the allegation if correct would render any collection of such tax to be in contravention of the provisions of the 1956 Act. The Acts having provided the consequences in such an eventuality, in my view, the State respondents ought to have resorted to the relevant provision thereof. The Apex Court in similar circumstances, in Pine Chemicals Ltd and others referred to above has also prescribed the same course of action, I respectfully subscribe to that view. 30. One more aspect of the matter has to be noticed. If any allegation of unauthorised collection of Tax is established, the consequences as provided in Section 65 A of the 1993 Act and/or Section 10 of the 1956 Act as the case may be, would follow. In a given case, the person collecting such tax may be penalised as well. Having regard to the adverse consequences that would result in such cases, the most rational and logical approach in the matter would be to examine and scrutinise each and every transaction in course of which tax is alleged to have been collected in contravention of the enactments to conclude that a person has illegally collected tax in his transactions comprising the annual turnover. Inference thereof from the incidence of such collection in one or more of such transactions besides not being permissible and sanctioned by law would amount to over simplification of the procedure prescribed at the cost and prejudice of the person concerned. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to concur with the submission made by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. In the face of specific provisions in the two Acts providing for such an eventuality, the impugned action of making a general assessment of all the transactions of the petitioner in exercise of power under Section 17(4) and 9(2) of the 1956 Act and raise a demand for the tax computed on its entire turnover without examining each and every transaction to verify as to whether any tax was at all collected inspite of the exemption granted, cannot be countenanced. 31. The impugned orders cannot survive on another consideration as well. The respondent No. 2, as the said orders reveal, had proceeded to make an assessment of the tax payable by the petitioner for the periods covered thereby on the supposition that the petitioner was not entitled to the exemption of tax. The consideration which runs through the impugned orders has been that though the petitioner was liable to pay the Central Sales Tax and had collected the same in all its transactions for the periods in question, it did not deposite the same. In other words, the assessing authority made an assessment of the tax payable by the petitioner in exercise of its power under Section 17(4) of the 1993 Act and Section 9(2) of the 1956 Act. As the petitioner in view of the decision rendered in Manjushree Extrusions Ltd. and anr,(supra) is entitled to the exemption from tax under both the enactments, the question of assessment of any tax payable by it cannot arise. The bottom plank of the impugned orders in the above premises is therefore nonest in law as well as on facts. On this reasoning as well the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 32. Except a reference to one agreement with M/s. H.E.F.Ltd, Bhopal and some sample bills relating to M/s. Carbon Ever flow Ltd., Nasik no specific instances have been mentioned in the impugned orders. On this reasoning as well the impugned orders cannot be sustained. 32. Except a reference to one agreement with M/s. H.E.F.Ltd, Bhopal and some sample bills relating to M/s. Carbon Ever flow Ltd., Nasik no specific instances have been mentioned in the impugned orders. On examining the documents filed along with counter of the State respondents, it appears that 5 sample bills have been submitted of which 2 relating to M/s. H.E.F. Ltd, Bhopal do not contain any signature on behalf of the petitioner Company. Three documents containing, terms and conditions for purchase of Coke by M/s. H.E.F. Ltd, Bhopal from the petitioner have also been filed indicating inter alia that it was agreed upon that 4% Central Sales Tax would be paid on the transactions. Sample bills corresponding to the transactions entered into have not been filed. Even assuming that the petitioner had realised the Central Sales Tax in the transactions contained in the documents filed by the State respondents it cannot be itself be decisively held that in all the transactions executed by the petitioner for the periods in question it had collected the tax as alleged and had thereafter defaulted to deposit the same in the Govt. Treasury. The Assessing Authority, however, as would be evident from the impugned orders, had proceeded on the basis that the petitioner had collected such tax in all the transactions for the entire period and therefore, held it liable to pay tax computing the same on the entire turnover. At the pain of reiteration it has to be again observed that the Assessing Authority in coming to its conclusion as above did not deal with the transactions separately and thus its findings are general, speculative, hypothetical and sweeping. There is nothing in the impugned orders to indicate that the petitioner was afforded any opportunity to have its say on all the transactions comprising its turnover for the periods in question so as to ascertain whether inspite of the exemption granted, any amount was collected as tax thereon, and if so, what was the amount and from whom. There is nothing in the impugned orders to indicate that the petitioner was afforded any opportunity to have its say on all the transactions comprising its turnover for the periods in question so as to ascertain whether inspite of the exemption granted, any amount was collected as tax thereon, and if so, what was the amount and from whom. In my considered view, unless a searching enquiry into these questions vis-a-vis the relevant records pertaining to each and every transaction is made it would not be permissible on the part of the Assessing Authority to raise a demand for payment of any amount by way of tax collected and not deposited by the person/dealer concerned on the entire turnover in the manner done. The petitioner in its affidavit-in-reply has taken a categorical stand that all C' Forms pertaining to the transactions in question are available with it, some of which had been submitted before the authority and so far as the others are concerned it was not afforded any opportunity to do so. This assumes importance in view of the fact that the Assessing Authority in the impugned orders has levied tax at the rate of 8% for the failure on the part of the petitioner to submit the C Forms. In this connection the stand taken by the petitioner that it is entitled to a refund of Rs. 40,67,5607- by way of refund of the local taxes paid by it on the raw materials for the relevant period also cannot be lost sight of. There is no indication in the impugned orders that the above claim of the petitioner had been considered by the Assessing Authority though it was laid before it. Coal including Coke being one of the declared goods U/s. 14 of the 1956 Act, the petitioner's claim for refund cannot be lightly brushed aside, 33. In the light of the above discussion I cannot persuade myself to uphold the impugned orders. The orders dated 28.10.98 impugned as well as the consequential notices of demand are therefore unsustainable and are set aside and quashed. I would however hasten to add that this would not come in the way of the State respondents to take any appropriate action in the attending facts and circumstances under the aforementioned two enactments in accordance therewith, if they deem it necessary. The petitions succeed and are allowed. I would however hasten to add that this would not come in the way of the State respondents to take any appropriate action in the attending facts and circumstances under the aforementioned two enactments in accordance therewith, if they deem it necessary. The petitions succeed and are allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there would be no order as to costs.