Judgment :- Radhakrishnan, J. Appellant is a small scale industrial unit engaged in the production of brochures, folders, leaflets, dockets etc. They have approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that the conditions prescribed in the notifications issued as per SRO NO.1092/99 as amended by notification SRO 295/2000 to the extent it denies sales tax exemption to the appellant’s unit in terms of the notification issued in S.R.No.1729 of 1993 is unconstitutional, unsustainable and illegal. Writ of mandamaus was also sought for directing the first and second respondents to grant sales tax exemption to the appellant’s unit in accordance with the notification SRO No.1729 of 1993. 2. Appellant had purchased 29.387 cents of land for construction of factory for starting an offset press vide registered sale deeds executed in the year 1997. Copies of the three sale deeds have been produced along with the writ petition covering pages 39 to 91 which made the case bundle bulkey and unwieldy. Production of the copies of sale deeds was unnecessary. Details regarding the execution of the sale deeds would have been sufficient. Care should be taken to produce only relevant documents in the writ petition so that it would be easy to bring home the point and reduce the workload of the Registry and the court. Appellant after purchasing the above mentioned property had applied for financial assistance from the Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, as per application dated 27.10.1999. Financial Corporation sanctioned financial assistance as per order dated 07.04.2000. Appellant company started construction of the building for the factory and placed orders for purchase of machinery. Appellant had acquired necessary machinery and started the offset press in a rented building. Commercial production was started on 30.09.2000. Construction of the building was completed on 15.05.2001, occupancy certificate was issued and electric connection was received on 25.10.2001. Permission to install machinery was received from the Corporation on 11.9.2001 and the unit was shifted to the new building. 3. Printing industry was exempted from salestax as per notification issued in SRO No.1090/99. Later as per notification SRO 802/2001 the exemption was withdrawn by the Government and printing industrial products was made liable to salestax. Application was therefore made on 23.09.2002 for salestax exemption. Appellant had also submitted application for financial assistance with the Vijaya Bank Ernaakulam for Rs.160 lakhs on 27.10.1999. Later as per notification SRO 802/2001 the exemption was withdrawn by the Government and printing industrial products was made liable to salestax. Application was therefore made on 23.09.2002 for salestax exemption. Appellant had also submitted application for financial assistance with the Vijaya Bank Ernaakulam for Rs.160 lakhs on 27.10.1999. Appellant applied for registration as a small scale industrial unit to the General Manager District Industries Centre and got provisional registration on 14.08.2000. The Unit got permanent registration on 5.11.2001. According to the appellant, he could not start commercial production due to reasons beyond his control. Request for exemption was considered by the General Manager District Industries Centre and the application was rejected stating as follows: “The provisional registration of the unit is dated 14.8.00. As the unit is not found eligible for salestax exemption, the party was heard by General Manager to know the effective steps taken prior to 1.1.00 for setting up the unit. The District Level Committee for salestax exemption held on 10.2.2003 after detailed discussion of the arguments put forward by the unit resolved to reject, the application, since it observed that the unit is not eligible for salestax exemption as per SRO NO.1029/99 and clarification issued in State Level Committee dated 4.2.02 since the unit is having provisional registration after 1.1.00…...” Appellant took up the matter in appeal before the Director of Industries and commerce and the appeal was rejected stating as follows: “The SLC examined the case and held that the condition (a) stipulating provisional SSI registration before 1.1.2000 is a compulsory condition of effective steps to qualify for STE as per the notifications. Whatever be the circumstances the unit has obtained provisional SSI registration only on 14.8.2000. As this is on a date after 1.1.2000 the unit cannot be regarded as one that has fulfilled the essential condition of eligibility for the benefit of Salestax exemption applicable to small scale industrial units in accordance with SRO No.1029/99 and SRO No.295/2000. Hence it was resolved by the SLC to reject the appeal. In the circumstances the appeal of M/s Anaswara Offset Private Ltd. Elamakkara Ernakulam stands rejected.” The General Manager, District Industries Centre as well as the Director of Industries and Commerce have rightly rejected the application. Appellant had started commercial production after 1.1.2000. Hence it was resolved by the SLC to reject the appeal. In the circumstances the appeal of M/s Anaswara Offset Private Ltd. Elamakkara Ernakulam stands rejected.” The General Manager, District Industries Centre as well as the Director of Industries and Commerce have rightly rejected the application. Appellant had started commercial production after 1.1.2000. Appellant would be entitled to get the benefit of SRO 1092/99 only if the appellants could establish that he had started commercial production prior to 1.1.2000. Admittedly production was started subsequent to that date. Hence he is not entitled to get exemption. This legal position has been reiterated by the apex court in the recent decision in State of Jharkhand and others v. Ambay Cements and Another (2004 (8) Supreme 163). The apex court was dealing with Bihar Finance Act 1981 read with Section 7 (3) (b) of the Industrial Promotion Policy, 1995. Reference was also made to SRO 478 and 479 dated 22.12.1995. Government of Bihar granted exemption to those new industrial units which started production during the period between 1995 to 31.8.2000 and who have obtained registration certificate from the competent authority. In that case respondent company, small scale industrial unit, obtained temporary registration certificate and the unit had applied for eligibility certificate. As per the notification prior permission from the Industries Department before 31.8.2000 is an important condition precedent for any unit to become eligible to be deemed as new industrial unit for the purpose of exemption. In that case, the apex court held as follows: “In our view, the conditions prescribed by the authorities for grant of exemption are mandatory for availing the exemption are mandatory for availing the exemption and the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot direct the grant of exemption in favour of the respondent overlooking the statutory conditions prescribed for the said grant and that too in the absence of any challenge to the validity of such condition.” The court also held that the exception or the exempting provision in a taxing statute should be construed strictly and it is not open to the court to ignore the conditions prescribed in the industrial policy and the exemption notifications. In this case appellant has not satisfied the mandatory condition of starting commercial production before the stipulated date. 4. In this case appellant has not satisfied the mandatory condition of starting commercial production before the stipulated date. 4. Counsel further submitted, in view of the notification SRO 1729/93 petitioner purchased the land and started construction of the building and applied for finance assistance. Petitioner, according to the counsel has altered his position to his detriment and the respondent cannot withdraw the notification. In our view, there is no factual or legitimate foundation to the petitioner’s plea. Facts would show that the petitioner has not compelled with the mandatory condition of starting production before 1.1.2000. In Bannaari Amman Sugars Ltd v. Commercial Tax Officer (2004 (8) Supreme 479) the apex court held that the rule of promissory estoppel can be invoked only if on basis of representation made by the Government, the industry was established to avail benefit of exemption. There is no factual basis for the petitioner’s plea. That being the position, we find no infirmity in the decision rendered by the learned single judge. The appeal is therefore dismissed.