RAJES KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) PRESENT revision under Section 11 of U. P. Trade Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "act") is directed against the order of Tribunal dated 05. 07. 2004 passed by the Full Bench of the Tribunal. ( 2 ) A partnership firm, consisting of four partners, namely, Sri Rajesh Agrawal, Sri Shyam mohan Agrawal, Smt. Pushpa Agrawal and Suit Shashi Gupta established a new industrial unit in the year 1983 for the manufacturing of L. P. G. Hot Plates at D/16, Industrial Estate, Bhojipura, bareilly. Production was started on 01. 11. 1983 and the first sale was also made on the same day. Subsequently, the aforesaid partnership was re-constituted w. e. f. 31. 03. 1984 and as a result of the re-constitution, Sri Shyam Mohan Agrawal had gone out and Sunil Kumar and Sri B. Prasad joined the partnership as a partners. Industrial unit established by the partnership firm was duly registered with the Directorate of Industries as a Small Scale Industries. Re-constituted firm filed an application for exemption under Government Order No. 8244, dated 30. 09. 1982. The exemption was sought on the sale of the manufactured goods for the period of five years from 01. 11. 1983 to 31. 10. 1988. Application was rejected on 28. 03. 1987 without assigning any reason. Applicant filed Writ Petition No. 1 153 of 1987, which was allowed on 07. 09. 2000 and the divisional Level Committee was directed to decide the exemption application afresh. Division bench of this Court held that while rejecting the application under Section 4-A of the Act, it was necessary to give the reasons. The exemption application was again rejected on 31. 10. 2002 by the Divisional Level Committee on the ground that the registration was given to the partnership firm, M/s Panchsheel Industries on 27. 04. 1982 and the production was started from 01. 11. 1983 and the said partnership firm was dissolved on 31. 03. 1984 w. e. f. 02. 04. 1984 and another partnership firm was constituted, who has applied for exemption. It was alleged that all the plant and machinery etc. being used by the new partnership firm have already been used by the old partnership firm and, therefore, on the basis of old plant and machinery, exemption could not be granted. Applicant filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the appeal. It was alleged that all the plant and machinery etc. being used by the new partnership firm have already been used by the old partnership firm and, therefore, on the basis of old plant and machinery, exemption could not be granted. Applicant filed appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the appeal. Tribunal has held that by Act No. 21 of 1991 w. e. f. 12. 10. 1983 under Section 4-A (2-B)of the Act has been introduced, which is applicable in the present case, in as much as the firm was re-constituted w. e. f. 31. 03. 1984 and, therefore, unit can not be said to be Industrial Unit before 31. 03. 1984 and after 02. 04. 1984, since no application was filed under section 4-A (2-B)of the Act for the exemption by 25. 09. 1990, the exemption was not eligible under section 4-A of the Act ( 3 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submitted that issue in the present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Sales Tax Revision No. 948 of 1994 and 949 of 1994, Punjab furniture House, Moradabad v. CST decided on 15. 09. 2004. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submitted that issue in the present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Sales Tax Revision No. 948 of 1994 and 949 of 1994, Punjab furniture House, Moradabad v. CST decided on 15. 09. 2004. Provisions to section 4-A of the Act as it stood on the date of first sale reads as follows: section 4-A (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where the State Government is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do for increasing the production of any goods or for promoting the development of any industry in the State generally or in any districts or parts of districts in particular, it may on application or otherwise, in any particular case of generally, by notification, declare that the turnover of sales in respect of such goods by the manufacturer thereof shall, during such period not exceeding seven yeas from such date on or after the date of starting production as may be specified by the state Government in such notification which maybe the date of the notification or a date prior to subsequent to the date of such notification and where no date is so specified from the date of first sale by such manufacturer, if such sale takes place within six months from the date of starting production and in any other case from the date following the expiration of six months from the date of starting production, and subject to such conditions as may be specified, be exempt from sales tax whether wholly or partly or be liable to tax at such reduced rate as it may fix. ( 5 ) SECTION 4-A (2-B) of the Act inserted by Act No. 21 of 1991 w. e. f. 12. 10. ( 5 ) SECTION 4-A (2-B) of the Act inserted by Act No. 21 of 1991 w. e. f. 12. 10. 1983 reads as follows: section 4a (2-B)If there is discontinuation of business, within the meaning of Sub-section (1) of Section 18, section 18, of the manufacturer who was eligible for exemption from or reduction in rate of tax under Sub-section (1), whether such exemption from or reduction in the rate of tax was already granted or not, and if he is succeeded by another manufacturer, such successor manufacturer may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), apply to the Office competent to grant eligibility certificate under clause (d) of sub-section (2), within sixty days of such succession, for the grant, under this section of exemption from or reduction in the rate of tax for the unexpired portion of the period for which exemption from or reduction in the rate of tax was or could be to the former manufacturers: provided that the aforesaid officer may, in its discretion and for adequate and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, entertain an application moved within six months of the date of the expiration of the period specified in this sub-section. ( 6 ) FURTHER a proviso was added in 1991 by Act No. 28 of 1991, which reads as follows: "provided that where the succession took place before April 25, 1990, such application may be made by September 25, 1990, provided further that the Commissioner of Sales Tax may, in his discretion and for adequate and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, entertain an application moved within six months of the date of expiration of the period specified in this sub-Section. " ( 7 ) IN the case of Jagat Machinery Manufacturer Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U. P. and Ors. (Supra)the provision of Section 4a came up for consideration before Division Bench of this court. In that case also there was a change in the constitution of firm. This court held as follows: 15. " ( 7 ) IN the case of Jagat Machinery Manufacturer Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U. P. and Ors. (Supra)the provision of Section 4a came up for consideration before Division Bench of this court. In that case also there was a change in the constitution of firm. This court held as follows: 15. The object and purpose with which Section 4-A has been enacted rules out the view, strenuously canvassed for by the learned standing counsel, that the ownership of the unit is the predominant factor for determining the question whether it was a new unit entitled to exemption from tax and that the change in ownership would alter the character of the unit as a new unit. The emphasis clearly is upon the nature of the Unit being a new unit and not upon the ownership of the unit. If the legislature wished to exclude availability of exemption from tad on the ground of ownership of the new unit, it would have specifically said so in some clause of the definition of new unit. The matter would not have been left for speculation. 16. If one looks at Section 3-C of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, one finds it provided in sub-section (2) that where the ownership of the business of any dealer liable to pay tax is transferred, the transferor and the transferee shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the tax including penalty, if any, payable in respect of such business till the time of such transfer, whether the assessment is made or the penalty is imposed prior to or after such transfer. As a necessary corollary, it must follow that where the goods produced in a new unit the exemption should be available to them irrespective of the fact that the ownership of the unit is transferred during the period for which the exemption has been granted, subject, of course, to the fulfillment of the conditions under which the exemption is to operate. ( 8 ) THIS court has repeatedly held that the object of Section 4a was to grant exemption to the manufacturer with the view to promote setting up a new industrial unit and irrespective of reconstitution of firm industrial unit run by it was entitled to exemption. ( 8 ) THIS court has repeatedly held that the object of Section 4a was to grant exemption to the manufacturer with the view to promote setting up a new industrial unit and irrespective of reconstitution of firm industrial unit run by it was entitled to exemption. ( 9 ) IN case of CST v. U. P. Leather Board Agra reported in 1980 UPTC 287, CST v. Good luck Rubber and Allied Industries, Lucknow reported in 1983 UPTC 909, 1986 UPTC 305 cst v. General Engineering Corporation, similar view was taken. ( 10 ) IN the case of CST v. Industrial Coal reported in 114 STC 365 S. C. The Apex court has considered the provision of Section 4a and held as follows: "in Commissioner of Income tax, Amritsar v. Strawboard Manufacturing Co. Ltd. {1989} 177 itr 431; (1989) Supp. 2 SCC 523 this Court held that in taxing statutes, provision for concessional rate of tax should be liberally construed. So also in Hajaj Tempo Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax (1992) 196 ITR 188 (SC); (1992) 3 SCC 78 , it was held that provision granting incentive for promoting economic growth and development in taxing statutes 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. We find that 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. " ( 11 ) SUB-SECTION (2-B) of Section 4-A provides that if there is discontinuation of business within the meaning of Sub-section (1) of Section 18 the manufacturer to whom the exemption was granted if succeeded by another successor manufacturer may apply to the competent officer within 60 days of succession for grant of exemption from or reduction at the rate of tax for unexpired portion for the period for which exemption from or reduction in the rate of tax was or could be to the former manufacturers. In my view Sub-section (2-B) of Section 4-A is not applicable in the present case for the following reasons: (1) period of exemption has been expired before the commencement of the provision and there was no unexpired period for exemption. In my view Sub-section (2-B) of Section 4-A is not applicable in the present case for the following reasons: (1) period of exemption has been expired before the commencement of the provision and there was no unexpired period for exemption. Sub-section (2-B) applies to the claim of exemption for unexpired portion of the period which was not available in the present case when the provision was introduced. (2)Provision contemplates moving of an application within 60 days from the date of succession. In the present case, the reconstitution took place on 02. 04. 1984 and therefore, under the aforesaid provision no application could be moved in as much as the provision was inserted in the year 1991. However, in my view, since exemption application under Section 4-A of the Act was moved by the re-constituted firm. Thus the information of re-constitution of the firm came on record and such application should be considered as proper compliance in accordance to Proviso to Section 4-A (2-B) of the Act. Therefore, in my opinion, rejection of exemption application on the alleged ground is not justified. In the circumstances. Divisional Level Committee is directed to issue eligibility certificate, if other conditions are fulfilled in accordance to the law. ( 12 ) IN the result, revision is allowed and order of Tribunal is set aside. Divisional Level committee is directed to consider the exemption application and in case, if conditions are fulfilled, eligibility certificate be issued. Divisional Level Committee is also directed to pass appropriate order in accordance to the law within three months from the date of presentation of certificate copy of this order. . .