JUDGMENT P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. 1. The Tata Iron, and Steel Company Limited (TISCO), an assessee to sale tax under the Bihar Finance Act and claimed the benefit of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001 and the notification issued pursuant thereto under Section 22 of the Bihar Finance Act. The assessee had established an industrial unit in the former State of Bihar, now Jharkhand. It had also set up a unit for the manufacture of Cold Rolled Products, a new product not manufactured by the company until then. According to the company, it had invested more than Rs. 1300 crores in that unit and in respect of that unit; it had claimed the benefit of the Bihar Industrial Policy, 1995. The question whether the petitioner company was entitled to claim the benefit of the Industrial Policy, 1995 was now pending decision in the Supreme Court, the High Court having remanded the claim of the petitioner in that behalf for re-consideration by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and on that being challenged in the Supreme Court. 2. On the announcement of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001, and the notification pursuant thereto, the company made the application Annexure 6, before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Therein, the company claimed that it was eligible to avail the benefit of set off of the sales tax paid on the purchase pf raw materials within the State of Jharkhand, with the sales tax payable on the sale of finished products within the State of Jharkhand, as well as on the inter, State sales in terms of the notifications, Nos. SO. 65 and 66, both dated 12.1.2002. The claim related to all lines of industries or units run by the Company. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the claim of the company on the ground that the company had claimed the benefit under the Industrial Policy, 1995 in respect of the Cold Rolling Mill Unit and hence, it was not entitled to claim the benefits of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001, all over again. Though the petitioner company sought to challenge this order directly in this Court, this Court declined to entertain the writ petition and directed the company to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, under Section 46(4) of the Bihar Finance Act. The Company thereafter filed a revision before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Though the petitioner company sought to challenge this order directly in this Court, this Court declined to entertain the writ petition and directed the company to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, under Section 46(4) of the Bihar Finance Act. The Company thereafter filed a revision before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. By order dated 26.3.2003, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dismissed the revision on the ground that the benefit was not available to the petitioner in view of its having claimed the benefit under the Industrial policy, 1995. The petitioner approached this Court with the present writ petition challenging the decision of the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner refusing it relief under the notifications, SO Nos. 65 and 66 dated 12.1.2002. 3. Learned counsel for the Department, during the course of arguments, raised a contention that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy by way of revision under Section 46(2)(b) of the Bihar Finance Act and the petitioner must be left to pursue that remedy. Counsel for the petitioner met this contention by pointing out that in the earlier judgment, directing the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under Section 46(4) of the Act, this Court had observed that in case the petitioner was aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner, the petitioner may approach this Court and on the basis of that direction, the petitioner was entitled to approach this Court direct. It was further pointed out that no such objection has been raised in the counter affidavit. After all, it was a question of interpretation of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001, and the notifications issued in furtherance of it under Sections 13 and 22 of the Bihar Finance Act. He submitted that there is no dispute on the facts involved, since the facts are, more or less, admitted and what is involved is only the interpretation of the notifications and consideration of the question whether the claim of the petitioner is sustainable on the facts. Hence, this is a fit case where the question should be decided by this Court rather than compelling the petitioner to go before the Tribunal. Hence, this is a fit case where the question should be decided by this Court rather than compelling the petitioner to go before the Tribunal. Considering the nature of the question to be decided, in the light of the observations made by the Division Bench, while earlier declining jurisdiction and taking note of the fact that the question involved is only the claim for benefit under the notifications on more or less admitted facts, we are not satisfied that the petitioner should be driven to pursue the alternative remedy that may be available to it. There is also a challenge to a part of the notification on the ground that it is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and since that contention could not be considered by the statutory Tribunal and could be dealt with only by this Court, it appears to be all the more appropriate for this Court to consider the claim of the petitioner in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, over-rule the preliminary objection raised half-heartedly by the learned Government counsel. 4. On 15.11.2000, State of Jharkhand came into existence. On 15.12.2000, the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1983 and the Central Sales Tax Act were extended to the State of Jharkhand. The State of Jharkhand issued an industrial Policy, Industrial Policy, 2001, with a view to provide optimum utilization of the available resources of the State in a planned manner and to accelerate the industrial development of the State. Certain benefits in the matter of payment of commercial taxes were also envisaged by the Policy. We are concerned with Sub-clauses (1) and (2) of Clause 28 of the Policy. Certain benefits in the matter of payment of commercial taxes were also envisaged by the Policy. We are concerned with Sub-clauses (1) and (2) of Clause 28 of the Policy. We may read the sub-clauses hereunder :-- "28.1 New Industrial Units as well as existing units which are not availing any facility of tax-deferment or Tax free purchases or Tax free sales under any notification announced earlier, shall be allowed to opt for set off of Jharkhand Sales Tax paid on the purchases of raw materials within the State of Jharkhand only against Sales Tax payable either JST or CST on sale, excluding stock transfer or consignment sale out side the State of finished products made out from such raw materials subject to a limitation of six months or the same financial year from the date of purchase of such raw materials. 28.2 Clause 13(i)(b) of the Adopted Bihar Finance Act, 1981 provides for two (2) rates of concessional sales tax on purchases of raw material and other inputs. These are 2% and 3% against Form IX. Both these rates will be reduced to 2% in view of the provision for set off as aforesaid. 5. This was followed by the issuance of a notification published on 12.1.2000 as SO No. 65, Annexure-3 in exercise of power under Section22 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. The said notification defined an industrial unit as meaning any industrial project in large and medium scale having approval in the form of letter of intent, industrial licence or registration certificate as the case may be, under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 or an acknowledgement in the form of Secretariat for Industrial Assistance Reference Number from Central Government excluding those mentioned in a negative list of industries. The notification defined an existing industrial unit as meaning an industrial unit, which had gone into commercial production before the effective date. A new industrial unit was defined as meaning an industrial unit which has come into commercial production between 15.11.2000 and 31.3.2005. This was followed by another notification Anenxure-4, issued under Section 23 of the Bihar Finance Act, as SO No. 66 dated 12.1.2002. A new industrial unit was defined as meaning an industrial unit which has come into commercial production between 15.11.2000 and 31.3.2005. This was followed by another notification Anenxure-4, issued under Section 23 of the Bihar Finance Act, as SO No. 66 dated 12.1.2002. Yet another notification, SO No. 67 dated 12.1.2002, Annexure-5, was also issued under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bihar Finance Act, Whereas the first two notifications were pursuant to Clause 28.1 of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001, the last notification was pursuant to Clause 28.2 of the said Policy. 6. It can be seen from Clause 28.1 of the Industrial Policy 2001 that the benefit under that clause was available to new industrial units as well as existing units. But to qualify, the existing unit must be one which had not availed of any facility of tax deferment or tax free purchase or tax free sale, under any notification issued earlier under any other industrial policy. Of course, the claimant of the benefit had also to have the registration under the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 or an acknowledgment as indicated in the notification. According to the petitioner, it had diversified and established a new unit, a Cold Rolled Mill, and had claimed for it the benefit of the Industrial Policy, 1995. It was, therefore, not claiming the benefit of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001, in respect of the Cold Rolled Mill. But the other units of the petitioner, which had been established at various points of time, were all existing units within the industrial policy, 2001 and in respect of those units, the petitioner was entitled to the benefit under Clauses 28.1 and 28.2, since in respect of those units, the petitioner had not claimed any benefit under any other industrial Policy. According to the petitioner, each industrial unit of the petitioner company must be considered as an independent unit within the meaning of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001, and if so considered, it was entitled to the benefit for its existing units other than the Cold Rolling Mill, which was also an existing unit under the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001. The stand of the Department is that the asses-see was one industry TISCO and it was an assessee who was entitled to claim the benefit of the Industrial Policy and the notifications issued under the Bihar Finance Act. The stand of the Department is that the asses-see was one industry TISCO and it was an assessee who was entitled to claim the benefit of the Industrial Policy and the notifications issued under the Bihar Finance Act. The assessee, the Company, had claimed the benefits of the Industrial Policy, 1995. Though the sustainability of that claim was still pending in the Supreme Court, the fact remains that the petitioner had claimed the benefit of the Industrial Policy, 1995 and hence the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001, in the light of the clear provision in the notification, denying the benefit to an industry which had already claimed the benefit of an earlier Industrial Policy. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes rejected the claim of the petitioner and the Commissioner, on revision, upheld that rejection essentially on the ground that the petitioner had claimed the benefit under the Industrial Policy, 1995 and hence it was not entitled to claim benefit under the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001. 7. There is no dispute that an existing unit eligible for relief under the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001, must be one which has not availed of any facility of tax deferment or tax free purchase or tax free sale under any notification issued earlier. This is clear from Clause 28.1 of the resolution on Industrial Policy, 2001 for the State of Jharkhand. What is involved is the question whether by claiming the benefit under the Industrial Policy, 1995 for its Cold Rolling Mill, the petitioner is disentitled to claim the benefit under Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001 in respect of its various existing units other than the Cold Rolling Mill. The petitioner concedes that having claimed the benefit of the Industrial Policy, 1995 for the Cold Rolling Mill, it was not entitled to claim the benefit of Industrial Policy, 2001 regarding that unit of the company, but its contention is that it is entitled to claim the benefit of the Policy, 2001 in respect of its other existing units, since the eligibility for the relief provided by the Industrial Policy, 2001 is unit based and not assessee based. In other words, it is contended that it is an industrial unit that is given the benefit by Industrial Policy, 2001 and since the company had a number of industrial units under its umbrella, the company could claim the relief under Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001 in respect of each one of its industrial units or production lines as an independent entity. Therefore, the fact that the benefit of Industrial Policy, 1995 was claimed in respect of one industrial unit, namely, the Cold Rolling Mill cannot stand in the way of the company claiming the benefit under the Industrial Policy, 2001 in respect of its other units which are existing units within the meaning of the Policy. 8. The contention of the learned counsel, for the Department is that the Company was one and the same; that it was the assessee; that it had only gone into diversification while it set up the Cold Rolling Mill and it could claim the benefit of the Industrial Policy, 1995 in respect of the Cold Rolling Mill, if it was otherwise entitled, since the diversification was also entitled to relief under that Policy. It does not, therefore, make the Cold Rolling Mill a separate industrial unit as sought to be contended by the petitioner. All these so-called units constitute the whole steel industry of the company and hence all of them together must be understood as an industrial unit referred to in Clause 28.1 of the Industrial Policy, 2001. No such splitting up of the various units of the Company was contemplated while considering whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the Industrial Policy, 2001 in respect of its existing units. 9. In Commissioner of Income-Tax, Amritsar v. Strawboard Manufacturing Co. Limited, 171 ITR 431, the Supreme Court observed that a law providing for concession for tax purposes to encourage industrial activity, should be liberally construed. Their Lordships observed, "It is necessary to remember that when a provision is made in the context of a law providing for concessinal rates of tax for the purposes of encouraging an industrial activity, a liberal construction should be put upon the language of the Statute. Their Lordships observed, "It is necessary to remember that when a provision is made in the context of a law providing for concessinal rates of tax for the purposes of encouraging an industrial activity, a liberal construction should be put upon the language of the Statute. "In Textile Machinery Corporation Limited v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, 107 ITR 195 (SC), the Supreme Court considering the claim for exemption under Section 15 C of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 took the view that once the new industrial undertaking is separate and independent production unit in the sense that the commodities produced or result achieved are commercially tangible products and the undertaking carried on separately without complete absorption and losing its identity in the old business, it is not to be treated as being formed by reconstruction of the old business. In Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Indian Aluminium Company, 108 ITR 367 (SC), and Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Oriental Paper Mills Limited, 176 ITR 110 (SC), the Supreme Court held that if in the new undertaking, separate and independent production units were to come into existence in the sense of producing a distinct commercial product and the undertaking could be carried on separately, the same would not be treated as being formed by reconstruction of the old business. In Municipal Commissioner v. Century Enka Limited, 100 STC 138 (SC), the Supreme Court, after referring to the above decisions, held that importing of plant and machinery for setting up of a unit for effecting substantial expansion of the business in existence and the new unit so set up, was an independent production unit, the new unit could not be treated as having been formed by reconstruction of the old business. In other words, it was held that it must be treated as a new unit. 10. In the light of the principles as indicated above, there is no doubt that the Cold Rolling Mill unit was an independent unit established by the Company. In a way, such diversified units were also entitled to claim the benefit under the Industrial Policy, 1995, if they otherwise satisfied the conditions laid down therein. The Company had, therefore, sought the concessions available under the Industrial Policy, 1995 in respect of the Cold Rolling Mill. Of course, the sustainability of that claim by the company is now pending in the Supreme Court. The Company had, therefore, sought the concessions available under the Industrial Policy, 1995 in respect of the Cold Rolling Mill. Of course, the sustainability of that claim by the company is now pending in the Supreme Court. But there was no dispute before us that the Company was in a position to claim the benefit of the Industrial Policy, 1995 in respect of the Cold Rolling Mill, if it was otherwise entitled to it. Now what the Company has done is to seek the benefit of the Industrial Policy, 2001 in respect of its units other than the Cold Rolling Mill. As far as the Industrial Policy, 2001 is concerned, all the units of the Company are existing units, since all of them had gone into production before 15.11.2000, the date on which the State of Jharkhand was born. Clause 28.1 speaks ,of new industrial units as well as the existing units. The Notification, SO.65 dated 12.1.2002 has gone on to define "Unit" as meaning any industrial project in large and medium scale. It also defines existing units as meaning an industrial unit which has gone into commercial production before the effective date. According to the new Oxford Dictionary of English. Project means an individual or collaborative enterprise that is carefully planned and designed to achieve a particular aim and the meaning of "unit" is given as an individual thing or person regarded as single and complete, especially for purposes of calculation. So any industrial enterprise that is carefully planned and designed to achieve a particular aim will be an industrial project. Clause 6 of the Notification, SO.65 relates to the verification of the returns filed by an industrial unit. Sub-clause (c) thereof seems to suggest that an industrial unit contemplated therein is a unit which files monthly/quarterly returns, for, it provides that each of the industrial units along with its monthly/ quarterly returns, will file certain documents in duplicate regarding purchases made and that they have been directly used for production of the products for sale. It can be said that Clause 6 of the policy tends to support the submission of the learned counsel for the Department that the industrial unit referred to in the notification is the assessee, or in this case, the company as a whole and not each of its individual lines or components. 11. It can be said that Clause 6 of the policy tends to support the submission of the learned counsel for the Department that the industrial unit referred to in the notification is the assessee, or in this case, the company as a whole and not each of its individual lines or components. 11. It appears to us that however liberally one may construe the relevant clause in the Industrial Policy, 2001, it may not be possible to accept the argument that each line of production of the company should be treated as an industrial unit, here, as the existing unit. The expressions "industrial unit" or "existing unit" appear to be used in a generic sense to indicate the Industry in its entirety and not each of its components. It cannot be forgotten that the assessee is the Company in respect of its industrial or business activities land it has the obligation to file monthly/quarterly returns in respect of the turnover from all its lines of production. No doubt, under the Industrial Policy, 1995, even a diversification was treated as a new industry for the purpose of benefit under that Policy. But here, there is no such fiction. Here, what is contemplated is a new industry that has come into existence or an existing industry which has not claimed benefit under any of the earlier notifications granting benefit pursuant to the Industrial Policy. Merely because a unit is defined as meaning any industrial project, it is not possible without anything more, to accept the argument that the Cold Rolling Mill of the Company should be treated as a separate industrial project and the rest of the production units of the Company should be treated as different individual industrial projects within the meaning of the Notification. SO. No. 65. But we are not pronouncing finally on this aspect in view of the course we propose to adopt in this case. 12. The Company does not dispute that it was an assessee under the Bihar Finance Act and that it has the obligation to file returns under that Act and to pay taxes under that Act. SO. No. 65. But we are not pronouncing finally on this aspect in view of the course we propose to adopt in this case. 12. The Company does not dispute that it was an assessee under the Bihar Finance Act and that it has the obligation to file returns under that Act and to pay taxes under that Act. What is contended is that the relevant notification has made the industrial units as the recipients of the benefit under the Industrial Policy, 2001 and hence what is to be looked into is whether the different units of the Company or different lines of manufacture undertaken- by the Company have had the benefit of any prior industrial policy or had taken advantage of any concession under any one of them. Whether in view of the definition of unit in the notification, we can treat each line of production launched by the Company as an industrial project is the question to be considered. The exemption claimed is set off of sales tax paid on raw materials, from the sales tax on finished product. Different lines of production or manufacture can in a given circumstance be an industrial project, but if the different lines are for achieving creation of the ultimate marketable product of the Company, (the different products may themselves be used as raw materials for the ultimate product), then, can it be said that each branch or line of production is an independent industrial unit? Adequate facts have not been pleaded by the Company in its application before the Deputy Commissioner in that regard. Only the disclosure of all the relevant facts would enable the authority to take a proper decision on the question. We must remember that unlike in the Policy of 1995, diversification or expansion is not treated as an industry by the Policy, 2001. 13. There is also the aspect that the claim of the Company for the benefit under the industrial Policy, 1995 regarding its Cold Rolling Mill has not been finally decided. This Court remanded the question to be reconsidered after evidence is taken. The Supreme Court has entertained a petition for Special Leave to Appeal filed by the Company against that order of remand and has stayed the further proceedings. This Court remanded the question to be reconsidered after evidence is taken. The Supreme Court has entertained a petition for Special Leave to Appeal filed by the Company against that order of remand and has stayed the further proceedings. If the Company is found not entitled to the benefit of the Policy 1995, it can obviously claim benefit of Policy 2001 including for its Cold Rolling Mill. It, therefore, appears that it will be appropriate to leave the Company to make its claim under Industrial Policy, 2001 after its claim for benefit under Policy 1995 is finally decided one way or the other. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even if the petitioner was not entitled to claim the benefit of Clause 28.1 under the Policy, the benefit of the rates of tax under Clause 28.2 of the Policy was available to the petitioner. Alternatively, he contended that if Clause 28.2 were to be construed as being applicable only to those industrial units which were entitled to the benefit under Clause 28.1 of the policy, then it would be discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of "Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Since the Classification adopted has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Policy. Learned Government Advocate submitted that on contention regarding validity was sought to be raised earlier when approaching the Authorities and hence it could not be permitted to be raised at this stage. We cannot accept that position since the Constitutional validity could be challenged by the petitioner only before this Court in this proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it could not have been raised before the Authority created by the Statute. 15. On a fair construction of Clause 28.2, it appears to us that it applies in the case of industrial units that are found eligible for relief under Clause 28.1 of the Policy. Clause 28.2 of the Policy had been introduced, as the said clause itself specifies, "in view of the provision for set off provided by Clause 28.1. In a case where set off is to be allowed, the purchase of raw materials was to be taxed at 2% as against the existing rate of 2% and 3%. Clause 28.2 of the Policy had been introduced, as the said clause itself specifies, "in view of the provision for set off provided by Clause 28.1. In a case where set off is to be allowed, the purchase of raw materials was to be taxed at 2% as against the existing rate of 2% and 3%. The intention appears to be to reduce the benefit by pegging down the deductible percentage of tax to 2% by reducing it from 3% in certain cases, which otherwise, the assessee would have been entitled to deduct. Reading Clauses 28.1 and 28.2 together, we are of the view that Clause 28.2 has application only in the case of an assessee who becomes eligible for the concession given by Clause 28.1. A claim for benefit under Clause 28.2, of the Policy, independent of Clause 28.1 and irrespective of the tenability of the claim under Clause 28.1, appears to us to be unacceptable. We are also not impressed by the argument that Clause 28.2 is discriminatory, irrational and has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Policy. To bring uniformity in the matter of deduction of Sales Tax paid on, raw materials, the rate has been made uniform so as to work out the benefit that could be given under the Clause 28.1 of the Policy. It cannot be said that this has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by Clause 28.1 of the Policy. The plea of discrimination also cannot be accepted, since, obviously, there is a classification, which is rational between industrial units eligible for relief and industrial units which are not eligible for relief. Therefore, not granting a concession to units not eligible for relief, does not spell in the realm of discrimination. We, therefore, overrule the argument that Clause 28.2 of the Policy is liable to be struck down, or in any event, it has conferred benefit on every industrial unit irrespective of whether it is entitled to benefit under Clause 28.1 of the Policy or not. 16. We, therefore, overrule the argument that Clause 28.2 of the Policy is liable to be struck down, or in any event, it has conferred benefit on every industrial unit irrespective of whether it is entitled to benefit under Clause 28.1 of the Policy or not. 16. Hence based on both these aspects, we think that the proper course to adopt is to set aside the orders of the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner impugned in this writ petition, leaving it to the petitioner to raise its claim setting out all the relevant information after its claim for benefit under the Industrial Policy, 1995 in respect of Cold Rolling Mill is finally decided. 17. Thus, we quash the orders under challenge giving liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh application for relief under the Industrial Policy, 2001 with all the necessary details and supporting materials after its claim for the benefit under Industrial Policy, 1995 in respect of its Cold Rolling Mill is finally decided. We reject the claim of the petitioner for benefit under Clause 28.2 of the Industrial Policy, 2001 irrespective of the acceptance or otherwise of its claim under Clause 28.1 of the Policy or independent of it. We also reject the challenge to the constitutional validity of Clause 28.2 to the extent it confines the benefit to those who alone are entitled to the benefit of Clause 28.1. The writ petition is thus partly allowed. Sd. R.K. Merathia, J. 18. I agree.