( 1 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel. An exemption notification under Section 4-A of the U. P. Trade Tax, 1948 dated 31. 03. 1995 has been published in the U. P. Gazette, Extra-ordinary dated 1. 4. 1995. ( 2 ) IN a nutshell it granted exemption from trade tax (1) to units being established newly for the first time, and (2) to existing units undertaking expansion. The English version of the disputed part of the notification dealing with the monetary limit up to which the benefit of exemption from or reduction in the rate of tax was permissible reads as follows : "250 percent of the fixed capital investment or, as the case may be, the additional fixed capital investment". ( 3 ) THE question arising for consideration in this writ petition is whether the expression "250 percent of the" qualifies only the first item i. e. "fixed capital investment", or the said expression also qualifies, the second item i. e. "additional fixed capital investment". ( 4 ) IF the words used had been as follows: "250 percent of the fixed capital investment or, as the case may be, of the additional fixed capital investment", there would have been no doubt or dispute or difficulty. But the command over the English language being what it is today, the expression used was not sufficiently accurate to remove ambiguity. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, looking at the words of the Hindi translation of the notification published in the same gazette clears that doubt. These words are " ;. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . The above words are very clear and show clearly that expression in question qualifies both the amounts. ( 6 ) LEARNED Standing counsel in reply argument has submitted that where there is a conflict between the Hindi and English version of a notification, the English version will prevail. However, here it is not a case of conflict, but it is a case whether the English version is ambiguous and for removing the ambiguity the Hindi translation is being used to assist the interpretation. ( 7 ) IN the circumstances, because the impugned order dated 20. 4. 2002 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) proceeds on an interpretation different from the interpretation which we have given above, we allow this writ petition and quash the order dated 20. 4. ( 7 ) IN the circumstances, because the impugned order dated 20. 4. 2002 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) proceeds on an interpretation different from the interpretation which we have given above, we allow this writ petition and quash the order dated 20. 4. 2002 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) and issue a mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioners case subject to the facts of each case, for exemption in the light of the interpretation given by us above to the relevant words of the notification. The fresh decision will be taken by the respondents within three months of the date on which the certified copy of this order is produced before the Commissioner, Trade Tax. .