ABDUL NAZEER, J. ( 1 ) IN this Case, the question arises for consideration is "whether the certificate of exemption granted to an Industrial Unit granting exemption from payment of sales tax can be modified after the expiry of the period of exemption?". ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows:the petitioner is a dealer engaged in the manufacture, sale and export of Cashew Kernels. It is registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'kst act') and central Sales Tax Act (for short 'cst Act') and is borne on the file of Deputy Commissioner of commercial Taxes (Assessments) Udup. ( 3 ) THE State Government has sanctioned revised package of incentives and concessions for new industrial investments in the State by Government Order No. CI 138 SPC 90 (P) dated 27. 9. 90 with effect from 1. 10. 90. The scheme was made with a view to achieve accelerated industrial development in all sectors namely tiny, small, medium and large scale industries. The new industrial policy while highlighting the strategy and approach for development of industries in future years provides the package of incentives and concessions for industrial development, with a view to ensure that the entrepreneurs of the State are not placed in a disadvantages position. Backward areas of the State were re-classified suitably to remove the existing anomalies. The government Order gave exemption from payment of Sales Tax (both CST and KST) to all new tiny, small, medium and large-scale industries on their output as per the details given in the said order. ( 4 ) THIS was followed by a Notification No. FD 239 CSL 90 (1) dated 19. 6. 1991 issued under sub-section (I) of Section 8-A of the KST Act by the State Government to the similar effect This notification provides the procedure of claiming exemption from payment of tax. The relevant procedure for the purpose of this case is as follows; "a new industrial unit which is claiming exemption under this Notification shall produce at the time of assessment of the first of the years for which exemption from tax is claimed. a) in case of Tiny/small/medium/large scale Industrial Unit, a certificate in original issued by the director of Industrial and commerce or his authorised nominee certifying. a) in case of Tiny/small/medium/large scale Industrial Unit, a certificate in original issued by the director of Industrial and commerce or his authorised nominee certifying. i) that it is a unit registered as such ii) that investment in the unit having been made on or after 1. 10. 1990 it is eligible for exemption under this Notification. iii) The date of its commencement of commercial production. iv) The Serial number of the Table above under which it is eligible for exemption; and v) That no part of its plant and machinery at the time of commencement of its commercial production is old/used/secondhand, with the exception of imported secondhand machinery". ( 5 ) THE petitioner has set up its new small-scale industry at Sy. No. 321/3c of Kukkundoor, karkala for the manufacture of Cashew Kernels, Cashew shell liquid and tin continers. It made an application for grant of certificate of exemption from payment of tax to second respondent in terms of the above Government Orders. The second respondent issued a certificate of exemption dated 10. 4. 1996 (Annexure-A) granting 100% tax exemption for a period of five years from 4. 5. 1995. e. the date of going into production. ( 6 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that for the assessment year 1996-97, it had claimed 100% exemption, which was accepted by the Assessing Authority. Later the Revisional Authority had initiated suo-moto proceedings proposing to restrict the exemption to the extent of actual investment made by it. The petitioner opposed the said proposal contending that it had claimed 100% exemption as per the certificate of exemption. Thereafter, the Revisional Authority dropped the said proceedings. The petitioner vide its letter dated 4. 11. 1998 requested the 1st respondent to clarify if the sales tax exemption granted to it has any monetary limits or if the same is available for the full five years without such limits. The first respondent vide its letter dated 7. 11. 1998 (Annexure-B) clarified that the petitioner was eligible for 100% sales tax exemption for a period of five years without monetary limits. For the assessment year 1998-99 assessment order was passed restricting the exemption to the monetary limit of the investment made by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said order in WP No. 32238-39/2000. This court by the order dated 17. 1. For the assessment year 1998-99 assessment order was passed restricting the exemption to the monetary limit of the investment made by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said order in WP No. 32238-39/2000. This court by the order dated 17. 1. 2001 quashed the assessment order with a direction to the assessing Authority to make an appropriate reference to the competent authority in regard to the validity of the certificate of exemption. Thereafter, the second respondent issued the amended certificate of exemption dated 7. 1. 2002, without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the certificate of exemption in WP No. 8198/2002. This Court by its order dated 4. 9. 2003 quashed the amended certificate referred above with a direction to the authority concerned to consider the material placed by it, hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a detailed reply on 3. 10. 2003 stating therein, amongst others, that the period of exemption has expired long back. e. on 4. 5. 2000 and the exemption certificate issued on 10. 4. 1996 cannot be modified retrospectively. However, the third respondent by its order dated 29. 10. 2003, while rejecting the claim of the petitioner has held that sales tax exemption is limited to investments made on fixed assets. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed this writ petition on various grounds. ( 7 ) I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. ( 8 ) SRI Arvind Kamath Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the certificate of exemption was issued on 10. 4. 1996 granting 100% sales tax exemption for a period of five years from 4. 5. 1995. The period of exemption has come to an end on 4. 5. 2000. The sales tax exemption granted was not limited to the investment made on fixed assets. The competent authority has once again clarified by the communication dated 7. 4. 1998 that the petitioner is entitled to sales tax exemption for a period of five years without any limit. On the basis of the exemption Certificate, the petitioner has carried on the business without collecting any sales tax from its customers. After a lapse of 8 years, the respondents are not justified in amending the certificate of exemption, which has retrospective effect. On the basis of the exemption Certificate, the petitioner has carried on the business without collecting any sales tax from its customers. After a lapse of 8 years, the respondents are not justified in amending the certificate of exemption, which has retrospective effect. Me submits that a detailed representation was filed to the third respondent as per Annexure-F to that effect. The third respondent has erred in not appreciating the contentions urged therein. On the other hand, learned AGA has justified the impugned order. ( 9 ) IT is well settled that in taxing statutes, provision for granting incentive for promoting economic growth and development should be liberally construed. The object of granting exemption from payment of sales tax has always been for encouraging capital investments and establishment of industrial units for the purpose of increasing production of goods and promoting the development of industries in the State particularly in backward areas. The Apex court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX v. INDUSTRIAL COAL enterprises 1999 (114) STC 365 has held as follows: "a provision granting incentive for promoting economic growth and development in taxing statues should be liberally construed and restriction placed on it by way of exception should be construed in a reasonable and purposive manner so as to advance the objective of the provision. The object of granting exemption from payment of sales tax has always been for encouraging capital investment and establishment of industrial units for the purpose of increasing production of goods and promoting the development of industry in the State. " ( 10 ) THE Assessing Authority for the purposes of determining the eligibility and the entitlement of an industrial unit seeking exemption under the Notification is legally bound to accept the factual aspects, which are covered by the Notification. If the certificate issued by the officers of the department of Commerce and Industries contains a factual error either apparent on the face of the record or even otherwise, then the Assessing Officer can request the concerned officers to rectify the certify the certificate and the competent Authority can correct the certificate after hearing the Industrial unit concerned see WIPRO INFOTECH LTD. , v. ADDITIONAL deputy COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIALTAXES 2000 (117) STC 244. , v. ADDITIONAL deputy COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIALTAXES 2000 (117) STC 244. But the question is whether the officers of the Commerce and Industries Department can be permitted to rectify the said certificate long after the expiry of the period of exemption particularly when the assessee has carried on the business without collecting the sales tax on the basis of the said certificate granted earlier. ( 11 ) IN KITCHEN AID v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. 1998 (110) STC 109 it is held that when the assessee had acted on the eligibility certificate and carried on its business, on the basis of the said certificate and did not charge any tax on the sales effected by it during the period of eligibility, the cancellation of the certificate with retrospective effect was not permissible. ( 12 ) IN COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, RAJASTHAN AND ANR. v. KANDHARI AND KANDHARI Pvt. Ltd, AND ANR. 1999 (113) STC 361 it has been held that even if a unit was in-eligible for tax exemption, if a certificate of exemption was granted by the competent authority and the dealer was not at fault for issue of the certificate of exemption and the benefits had been fully availed of, the certificate of exemption cannot be withdrawn with retrospective effect. ( 13 ) IN BIRLA JUTE AND INDUSTRIES Ltd. , v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND anr. 2000 (119) STC 14 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the District Industrial Centre was not justified in reviewing the certificate of exemption long after the time thereof had expired and long after its benefits had been availed by the appellant therein. ( 14 ) IN STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. v. BHATNAGAR CEMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD, 2002 (52) Kar. L. J. 110 the Apex Court has held that where the assessee under exemption during the relevant period was neither required to collect nor had he infact collected tax, he cannot be asked to pay tax for the said period. ( 15 ) THIS Court in ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES Ltd. , BANGALORE AND ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 2003 (55) Kar. ( 15 ) THIS Court in ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES Ltd. , BANGALORE AND ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 2003 (55) Kar. L. J. 325 has held that the amendment of certificate of exemption modifying or totally denying the concession already availed by the assessee under the certificate or under the guise of rectifying errors apparent on the face of the certificate on account of the change of policy of the Government is impermissible and without jurisdiction. ( 16 ) FROM the discussion made above, it is clear that modification of certificate of exemption after expiry of the period of exemption, retrospectively is not permissible in law. The petitioner had carried his business on the basis of the said certificate of exemption and did not charge any tax on the sales effected by it during the period of eligibility. The period of exemption had expired on 3. 5. 2000. The modification made to the certificate of exemption is long after its expiry. In my view, the respondents are not justified in restricting the sales tax exemption to the investment made on fixed assets at this belated stage. ( 17 ) IN the result, the writ petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. The order dated 29. 10. 2003 (Annexure-G) is quashed. Rule made absolute. No costs.