ORDER 1. DELAY CONDONED. 2. LEAVE GRANTED. 3. AS PER THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE HIGH COURT DIRECTED THE APPELLANTS TO ISSUE FINAL ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE TO THE RESPONDENT FOR A SUM OF RS 12,80,034 FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING SALES TAX EXEMPTION, PURSUANT TO THE INCENTIVE SCHEME APPLICABLE TO NEW INDUSTRIES. INCIDENTALLY, THE HIGH COURT QUASHED THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19-4-2000, ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES REJECTING THE CLAIM FOR ISSUANCE OF FINAL ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE, OVER AND ABOVE WHAT WAS. GRANTED EARLIER, ON TWO GROUNDS: (I) THE EVIDENCE ABOUT THE SUPPLIER AND PROOF OF PAYMENT FOR THE EXPELLERS PURCHASED FROM M/S SWARAN ENGINEERS, LUDHIANA, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE UNIT; AND(II) CERTIFICATION OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT THAT BOTH M/S SWARAN ENGINEERS, LUDHIANA AND M/S GOVIND EXPELLERS, LUDHIANA, ARE UNDER THE SAME MANAGEMENT MAINTAINING COMMON ACCOUNTS, HAS NOT BEEN FILED. AS THE SAID INFORMATION WAS NOT FURNISHED, THE COMMUNICATION STATED THAT THE CLAIM WAS LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. HOWEVER, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT, ONLY A SUM OF RS 2.86 LAKHS IS THE ADMISSIBLE AMOUNT FOR WHICH THE CERTIFICATE WAS GRANTED ON 24-2-1995. 4. IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO REFER TO THE HISTORY OF PREVIOUS LITIGATION IN REGARD TO THE SAME ISSUE. SUFFICE IT TO STATE THAT THE EARLIER WRIT PETITION VIZ. WP NO. 5398 OF 2000 WAS CLOSED REFERRING TO THE STATEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD SINCE FURNISHED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND THE MATTER WAS UNDER THE ACTIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE AND THAT IN CASE THE RESPONDENTS FAILED TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS, THE PETITIONER (RESPONDENT HEREIN) WAS AT LIBERTY TO SEEK RECOURSE TO FURTHER PROCEEDING ACCORDING TO LAW. BEFORE THE HIGH COURT, THE RESPONDENT URGED THAT THEY HAD FURNISHED THE NECESSARY PROOF INCLUDING THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS CERTIFICATE TO THE EFFECT THAT M/S SWARAN ENGINEERS, LUDHIANA AND M/S GOVIND EXPELLERS, LUDHIANA WERE SISTER CONCERNS AND THEY WERE UNDER THE COMMON MANAGEMENT. IT IS THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENT THAT ALTHOUGH THE ORDER, WAS PLACED ON M/S SWARAN ENGINEERS, LUDBIANA, THE SUPPLY ON MACHINERY (EXPELLERS) WAS MADE BY M/S GOVIND EXPELLERS, LUDHIANA AND THE PAYMENT WAS ALSO MADE TO THEM BY WAY OF DEMAND DRAFTS. IT IS THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENT THAT ALTHOUGH THE ORDER, WAS PLACED ON M/S SWARAN ENGINEERS, LUDBIANA, THE SUPPLY ON MACHINERY (EXPELLERS) WAS MADE BY M/S GOVIND EXPELLERS, LUDHIANA AND THE PAYMENT WAS ALSO MADE TO THEM BY WAY OF DEMAND DRAFTS. AFTER REFERRING TO THIS FACT THE HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT THOUGH THE WRIT PETITIONER (RESPONDENT) FURNISHED THE RELEVANT PARTICULARS, ONCE AGAIN, THE FINAL ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN DENIED WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION AND THEREFORE THE RELIEF OUGHT TO BE GRANTED TO THE RESPONDENT WITHOUT FURTHER REMANDING THE CASE. HOWEVER THE HIGH COURT DID NOT ADDRESS ITSELF TO THE QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION OF RELEVANT PROVISION AND THE CRITERIA TO BE APPLIED. 5. THE LEGAL CONTENTION NOW RAISED BEFORE US BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE STATE IS THAT ONLY THE PART OF THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT MADE DURING THE PERIOD PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION COULD BE LEGITIMATELY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF GRANTING SALES TAX EXEMPTION AND ANY INVESTMENT MADE THEREAFTER IS NOT ADMISSIBLE ACCORDING TO GOMS NO. 498 DATED 16-10-1989 AND THE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED WERE THEREFORE JUSTIFIED IN CALLING UPON THE RESPONDENT TO FURNISH PROOF OF INVESTMENTS MADE BEFORE GOING INTO THE COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION., THIS CONTENTION, IN OUR VIEW, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. A REFERENCE TO THE GO CITED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT STATE IS REALLY NOT RELEVANT INASMUCH AS THE FIELD IS COVERED BY THE ENACTMENT PASSED BY THE A.P. STATE LEGISLATURE TITLED A.P. SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES (RESTRICTION ON SALES TAX HOLIDAY) AD, 1995 (ACT 14 OF 1995) WHICH CAME INTO FORCE WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 16-10-1989. THIS ACT WAS ENACTED FOR THE APPARENT PURPOSE OF RESTRICTING THE SCOPE OF EXEMPTION TO 100% OF THE FIXED CAPITAL INVESTMENT OR RS 35 LAKHS WHICHEVER WAS LESS. BY AN INTERPRETATION OF THE EARLIER GOS WHICH WERE IN FORCE PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE SAID ACT, EXEMPTION WAS BEING CLAIMED UP TO RS 35 LAKHS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT MADE. IT WAS WITH A. VIEW TO GET OVER THIS SITUATION THAT ACT 14 OF1995 WAS ENACTED. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE ACT, WHICH HAS A LONG PREAMBLE, READS AS FOLLOWS: "2. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN GOMS NO. IT WAS WITH A. VIEW TO GET OVER THIS SITUATION THAT ACT 14 OF1995 WAS ENACTED. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE ACT, WHICH HAS A LONG PREAMBLE, READS AS FOLLOWS: "2. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN GOMS NO. 498, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE (IA) DEPARTMENT, DATED 16:10-1989, OR, IN ANY JUDGMENT, H DECREE OR ORDER OF ANY COURT, TRIBUNAL OR OTHER AUTHORITY OR ANY ORDER TO THE CONTRARY, THE GOVERNMENT MAY DECLARE A SALES TAX HOLIDAY LIMITED TO 100% OF THE FIXED CAPITAL INVESTMENT OR RUPEES THIRTY-FIVE LAKHS, WHICHEVER IS LESS, FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS IN RESPECT OF THE SMALL-SCALE INDUSTRIES INCLUDING THE OIL MILLS CRUSHING NON-EDIBLE OIL SEEDS, SET UPON OR AFTER 31-10-1989 AND GO INTO COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION BEFORE 31-3-1995 IN THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH EXCEPT THE INDUSTRIES INDICATED IN THE ANNEXURE TO THE SAID GOVERNMENT ORDER AND THE INDUSTRIES LOCATED IN THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LIMITS OF HYDERABAD, VISAKHAPATNAM AND VIJAYAWADA." 6. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE INDUSTRY OF THE RESPONDENT IS AN ELIGIBLE INDUSTRY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING THE SALES TAX HOLIDAY. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE INDUSTRY WAS SET UP AFTER OCTOBER 1989 AND THAT IT HAD GONE INTO COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 13-4-1991 WHICH FALLS BETWEEN 31-10-1989 AND 31-3-1995. THE CAPITAL INVESTMENTS TOWARDS INFRASTRUCTURE AND MACHINERY WERE MADE DURING THIS PERIOD. ON A PLAIN READING OF SECTION 2 EXTRACTED ABOVE, THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE STATE THAT THE CAPITAL INVESTMENTS MADE PRIOR TO THE DATE OF GOING INTO COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION ALONE SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, CANNOT BE COUNTENANCED. IF WE ACCEPT THAT INTERPRETATION IT WOULD AMOUNT TO READING WORDS WHICH ARE NOT FOUND IN THE RELEVANT PROVISION GRANTING EXEMPTION AN INTERPRETATION WHICH CANNOT BE COUNTENANCED (VIDE THE RECENT DECISION OF THIS COURT IN I.T.C. LTD. V. CCE1). EVEN IF THERE IS ANYTHING IN GO OF 1989 WHICH MIGHT SUPPORT THE INTERPRETATION SOUGHT TO BE PLACED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE STATE, HAVING REGARD TO THE PLAIN LANGUAGE EMPLOYED IN THE ACT, SUCH CONTENTION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IN FACT, ANY SUCH INTERPRETATION WOULD GO CONTRARY TO THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 2 SPELT OUT BY THE CLAUSE. "LIMITED TO 100% OF THE FIXED CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN RESPECT OF INDUSTRIES SET UP ON OR AFTER 31-10-1989 AND GO INTO COMMERCIAL , PRODUCTION BEFORE 31-3-1995". IN FACT, ANY SUCH INTERPRETATION WOULD GO CONTRARY TO THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 2 SPELT OUT BY THE CLAUSE. "LIMITED TO 100% OF THE FIXED CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN RESPECT OF INDUSTRIES SET UP ON OR AFTER 31-10-1989 AND GO INTO COMMERCIAL , PRODUCTION BEFORE 31-3-1995". THE FIXED CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN THE FORM OF INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT TO MAKE THE INDUSTRIAL UNIT COMPLETE IN ALL RESPECTS MAY GO ON EVEN AFTER THE UNIT GOES INTO COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ACT WHICH EXCLUDES THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT MADE SUBSEQUENT TO THAT DATE, SUBJECT OF COURSE TO THE OBSERVANCE OF OUTER LIMIT OF 31-3-1995: 7. THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENT OBVIOUSLY FALLS WITHIN THE TWO TERMINI SET OUT IN ACT 14 OF 1995. MOREOVER, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT SECTION 2 STARTS WITH A NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE VIZ.: "NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN GOMS NO. 498, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE (IA) DEPARTMENT, DATED 16-10-1989, OR, IN ANY JUDGMENT, DECREE OR ORDER OF ANY COURT, TRIBUNAL..." THE NON OBSTANTE PROVISION THUS INDICATES THAT THE GO ISSUED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE ACT CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLYIILG THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA. THE ACT CAME INTO FORCE ON 16-10-1989, WHICH HAPPENS TO BE THE DATE OF THE PROMULGATION OF GOMS NO. 498. 8. HAVING THUS NOTED THE LEGAL POSITION AS REGARDS THE ENTITLEMENT OF THE RESPONDENT FOR GETTING THE INCENTIVE OF SALES TAX HOLIDAY FOR A PERIOD, OF 5 YEARS, WE DIRECT THE APPELLANTS CONCERNED TO WORK OUT THE ACTUAL FIXED CAPITAL INVESTMENT MADE BY THE RESPONDENT DURING THE AFOREMENTIONED PERIOD BY VERIFYING THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND ACCOUNTS THAT MAY BE FURNISHED AND/OR ALREADY FURNISHED BY THE RESPONDENT AND TO GRANT THE FINAL ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATE FOR SALES TAX EXEMPTION TO THAT EXTENT. IN ANY CASE, IT SHALL NOT EXCEED THE CLAIMED AMOUNT OF RS 12.80 LAKHS. THIS EXERCISE SHALL BE COMPLETED WITH A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THIS B ORDER. 9. THE APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY.