ORDER 1. Delay condoned. 2. In these matters, notice was issued limited to question whether or not the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Notification S.R.O. No. 141 of 2000. 3. The proviso, which is sought to be relied upon, reads as follows: "Provided that the existing industrial unit already in receipt of incentives under the notification of Government of Orissa in the Finance Department No. 2026-CTA-14/76-F dated 23-4-1976 as amended from time to time immediately before 1-1-2000 shall continue to avail the incentives for the period of their eligibility under the said notification:" 4. Thus, the proviso only protects those existing industrial units who are in receipt of incentives under the notification of the Government of Orissa dated 23-4-1976 as amended from time to time. It is only those industrial units who shall continue to avail the incentives for the period of their eligibility. 5. It is an admitted position that, amongst others, one of the amendments e was by the notification dated 30-7-1999. By this amendment tax concessions granted to certain commodities were withdrawn. Once the incentives/ concessions were withdrawn those industrial units did not continue to enjoy the incentives/concessions under the notification dated 23-4-1976. Therefore the proviso would not apply to those industrial units. 6. An attempt was made to reargue that the notification dated 30-7-1999 f was not valid. That argument was not permitted in view of the fact that a limited notice was issued. Such an argument has already been rejected on earlier occasion. 7. It was also sought to be submitted that the notification dated 30-7 -1999 did not take away incentives or concessions which were already granted by the earlier notification. It was submitted that this notification only operated prospectively and only applied to new industries who would now not get any incentives or concessions after the date of this notification. In our view such an interpretation is contrary to a plain reading of the notification dated 30-7-1999 which amongst other things provides as follows: "AND WHEREAS, keeping in view the loss of revenue on account of sales tax incentives and concessions granted under various industrial policies, it is considered necessary to withdraw some of these incentives;" Even otherwise, we find that no such contention had been raised before the High Court. When we asked if any such contention was raised before the High Court, all that could be pointed out is the following paragraph from the impugned judgment of the High Court: "In OJC No. 4297 of 2000 Mr N. Paikray, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that although the petitioner being a new small-scale industrial unit established pursuant to the IPR 1989 was entitled to sales tax incentives for the full period of 7 years from the date of its commercial production, the Government of Orissa in the Finance Department has by the impugned notifications dated 30-7 -1999 withdrawn the said sales tax incentives on unreasonable and erroneous grounds and that the impugned Notification S.R.O. No. 622/99 dated 30-7 -1999 deleting Entries 26- F, 30- FFF and other entries from the tax-free list with effect from 1-8-1999 are not sustainable in the eye of the law. Alternatively, Mr Paikray submitted that by a fresh notification dated 17-2-2000 issued by the Government of Orissa in the Finance Department and in particular under the first proviso thereof, new small-scale industrial units who are in receipt of sales tax incentives immediately before 1-1-2000 under the Finance Department Notification No. 2026-CTA-14/76-F dated 16-8-1990 (sic) shall continue to avail the incentives for the full period of 7 years as per the said notification dated 16-8-1980 (sic)." In our view, these submissions do not cover what is now being argued for the first time. Such a contention cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in this Court. 8. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere. The special leave petitions are dismissed. 9. In view of the dismissal of the special leave petitions, application for intervention does not survive and is dismissed as such.