JUDGMENT B. P. DAS, J. : The petitioner-M/s. Hi-Tek Powercon Pvt. Ltd. has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the prayers to (a) quash the minutes of the meeting taken up by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Orissa, with the officers of the National Aluminium Compa¬ny Ltd. and the representatives of the Orissa Alluminium Utensils Manufacturers Association on 23.10.2002 (Annexure-1A); (b) direct the opposite parties to grant sales tax exemption to the peti¬tioner in view of Entry 43-A of the Finance Department Notifica¬tion dated 26.7.1996; (c) direct the opposite parties to grant sales tax exemption to the petitioner as per the specific provi¬sion made in this regard under the Industrial Policy Resolution 1996; and (d) declare that the petitioner industry being a prior¬ity industry is entitled to sales tax exemption. 2. The case of the petitioner, as projected in the writ petition, briefly stated, is as follows : The petitioner-company is a beneficiary under the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1996 (‘IPR 1996’ hereinafter) issued by the State Government, which provided for certain incentives to different categories of industries as indicated therein. As per the said IPR 1996, the Industries Department is the Nodal Depart¬ment. In the year 1999 the petitioner, after having satisfied the terms and conditions stipulated in the IPR 1996, established an industry in village Saura in the district of Khurda for manufac¬ture of Aluminium Conductors with a project cost of more than Rs.1 crore in order to become a “Priority Industry”. The peti¬tioner’s industry commenced its commercial production on and from 2.11.2000. The Industries Department by letter dated 27.1.1999 addressed to the Managing Director of petitioner-company, vide Annexure-9, made a clarification on the grant of sales tax con¬cession and on the definition of “Technical Entrepreneur” under the provisions of the IPR 1996 the material part of which is re-produced below. “......It is inform you that the industrial units for manu¬facturing Aluminium Conductors under the category of Priority Industries having the project cost not less than Rs.1.00 crore under Small Scale Sector are eligible to get determent/exemption of sales tax @ 200% of Fixed Capital Investment with additional period of 2 years as envisaged in Para 5.6 (ii) of I.P.-1996 (Part-II) read with Para of paragraph 43(A)(ii) of Col.3 at p.12 of S.R.O. No.475 96/F dated 26.7.96 issued by Govt. of Orissa in Financial Department which may please be referred to along with explanation notes of VI(p-23) of the said S.R.O. Besides Govt. of Orissa in Industries Department vide their Letter No.20174/I, dated 02.08.96 have issued guidelines separately for grant of incentives of Sales tax in favour of priority industries which may please be referred to which is self-explanatory. .....” The Industries Department by its notification No.2184 dated 2.2.1999, Annexure-10, by way of amendment substituted sub-para 5.6 (ii) (Part-II) of the IPR 1996 published in the Industries Department notification No.4863-XIV.HI-1/86 dated 2.3.1996 as follows : “For all “priority industries’ entitled to incentives under this Industrial Policy, the period of exemption/deferment will be extended by 2 additional years and there will (sic) be no maximum limit on such exemption/deferment during the eligibility period.” The Industries Department by letter dated 20/21.6.2000 addressed to the Managing Director of the petitioner-company, under Annexure-3 series, clarified that “Aluminium based Indus¬tries” having a project cost of not less than one crore had been declared as priority industries as envisaged in para-2.7 (iii) Part-II of the IPR 1996, and entitled to avail the incentives in terms of the provisions laid down in the said IPR. It was further clarified therein that all new small, medium and large scale industrial units would be eligible for exemption/deferment of sales tax on purchase of machineries, spare parts of machineries, raw materials, packing materials and finished products whereas new small scale industries would be eligible for exemption and new large, medium scale would have the option to defer payment of sales tax on finished products from the date of commercial pro¬duction, provided the unit should have fulfilled the criteria mentioned in the Finance Department notification No.7352-CTA/5/99/F dtd. 17.2.2000 read with SRO No.141/2000. The Director of Industries issued the certificate of eligibility in favour of the petitioner unit for sales tax concession on raw materials, machinery, spare parts, packing materials and finished products under IPR 1996 for eight years from the date of commercial pro¬duction, i.e., from 2.11.2000 to 1.11.2008. The Director of Industries also issued a certificate in favour of the petitioner declaring petitioner-industry as a priority industry eligible to avail the sales tax incentives. The aforesaid certificates have been annexed as Annexure-3 series. The Director of Industries also issued a certificate in favour of the petitioner declaring petitioner-industry as a priority industry eligible to avail the sales tax incentives. The aforesaid certificates have been annexed as Annexure-3 series. By the letter dated 1.10.2002, Annexure-4, the Sales Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar II Circle, Bhuba¬neswar, intimated the petitioner that the petitioner-industry was entitled to sales tax exemption under the IPR 1996 during the period, i.e., from 2.11.2000 to 1.11.2008. The petitioner while enjoying the aforesaid tax exemption, O.P. No.6-National Alumini¬um Company Ltd. (NALCO) by letter dated 31.10./01.11.2002 issued to the petitioner, Annexure-1, demanded deposit of 4.5% of the value of the material to be supplied as security deposit so as to cover the NALCO against any eventually liability. Thereafter the State Govt. in Finance Department by notification no. SRO 932/2002 dated 12.11.2002 issued under Section 6 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (Annexure-17) amended Item no.(ii) of the third proviso to Clause 3 of Entry 43-A of its notification dated 23.4.1976 which provided that the period of exemption for all priority industries would be extended by two additional years and there would be no maximum limit on such exemption during the eligibility period. The Sales Tax Officer on 27.11.2002 passed the orders of assessment for the year 2001-2002 under the O.S.T. Act and C.S.T. Act granting the exemption as provided in the IPR 1996 to the petitioner industry, copies of which are an Annex¬ures-6 series. Thereafter the S.T.O. issued the letter dated 30.4.2003, vide Annexure-7, intimating the petitioner that a certificate had been inadvertently issued vide office letter No.30243 dated 24.12.2002 under the seal and signature of the Sales Tax Officer, Bhubaneswar II Circle, Bhubaneswar, in favour of the petitioner relating to exemption of sales tax under the IPR 1996 and the same had been cancelled with effect from the date of issue. The petitioner had filed a writ petition against the aforesaid order as well as the demand raised by the Sales Tax Department. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, petition¬er’s industry comes under the priority industries in terms of Entry 43-A of the Sales Tax Exemption Notification dated 26.7.1996 and as such it is entitled to the exemption provided in the IPR 1996. 3. The Industries Department through the Assistant Direc¬tor of Industries (R.R.), Orissa, filed a counter affidavit on 16.10.2004. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, petition¬er’s industry comes under the priority industries in terms of Entry 43-A of the Sales Tax Exemption Notification dated 26.7.1996 and as such it is entitled to the exemption provided in the IPR 1996. 3. The Industries Department through the Assistant Direc¬tor of Industries (R.R.), Orissa, filed a counter affidavit on 16.10.2004. In paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the aforesaid counter affidavit it is stated as follows : “3. That short facts which are necessary for disposal of the writ petition are that the Industrial Unit namely M/s. Hi-Teck Powercon Private Limited was established in the year 1999 and was registered as Small Scale Industrial Unit (Priority sector) with P.M.T. No.15/15/03302 dated 16.11.2000 for manufacturing of aluminium conductors and other aluminium products with an annual capacity of 3400 MT per annum. The commercial production of the unit commenced on 2.11.2000. Therefore, the unit is entitled to the benefit under the Industrial Policy of 1996. 4. That as per the IPR 1996 the unit is entitled to sales tax exemption benefit as incentive for establishment of the industrial unit of the date of commercial production for a period of six years. Subsequently the said period was extended for a further period of two years as the unit comes within the priority sector. So in toto the unit is entitled to avail sales tax exemp¬tion for a period of 8 years commencing from 2.11.2000 to 1.11.2008. According to Clause 5.6 Part-II of I.P.R. 1996 the SSI unit will be eligible for exemption of sales tax on purchase of machinery, spare parts of machinery, raw materials, stocking materials and finished product for a period of six years when the industrial unit situated in Zone-B. This industrial unit comes within the Zone-B of the State. But so far as the materials procured prior to the date of eligibility, i.e. the commercial production, i.e., 2.11.2000, any materials supplied by NALCO the petitioner is liable to pay sales tax. 5. That in view of the facts and submissions made above, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. That the facts which have not been admitted herein speci¬fically are deemed to have been denied.” 4. 5. That in view of the facts and submissions made above, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. That the facts which have not been admitted herein speci¬fically are deemed to have been denied.” 4. The counter affidavit filed by the Industries Department fully supports the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefits as claimed by it. A similar writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2976 of 2003 filed by M/s. Rishabh Electrical Pvt. Ltd. was heard finally along with the present case but on the request of the counsel appearing for the petitioner in that case, the said case was delinked from this case because of certain amendments brought about in that writ petition. No counter affidavit has been filed by the Finance Department in the present case. But the counter affidavit filed by the Finance Department in W.P. (C) No.2976 of 2003 has been adopted in this case. In the said counter affidavit, the Finance Department has taken the stand that priority industries have never been treated by the State Govt. as separate industries or a class of industries in the sense of classification of small/medium/large scale; and that since the minimum investment limit for priority industries is Rs.1.00 crore and above, which is the threshold for medium and large scale industries during the framing of the IPR 1996; and as the intention of the Govt. was to give concession to priority industries falling within the category of Medium and Large scale, such industrial units would, therefore, come under the purview of Entry 43-A. According to the Finance Department, there is no incongruity between IPR 1996 of the Industries Department and the notification of the Finance Department giving sales tax exemption/deferment, IPR 1996 envis¬ages certain privileges/incentives for priority industries having investment not less than Rs.1.00 crore. Industries having that level of investment fall within the category of medium scale which is the basis for classification of industries in terms of the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951. 5. From the facts narrated above, the question that emerg¬es for consideration of this Court is whether the petitioner industry is to be treated as a priority industry under IPR 1996 so as to be eligible to avail the incentives of exemption of sales tax. 5. From the facts narrated above, the question that emerg¬es for consideration of this Court is whether the petitioner industry is to be treated as a priority industry under IPR 1996 so as to be eligible to avail the incentives of exemption of sales tax. Before considering the aforesaid question, the bare facts that should be kept in mind are that the eligibility certificate issued by the Director of Industries for sales tax exemption to the petitioner industry still remains in force and has not been cancelled at any point of time and that the counter affidavit filed initially by the Industries Department supports the case of the petitioner, though after insistence of the Court the Finance Department filed an affidavit taking the view as indicated in the foregoing paragraph. In order to resolve the issue that has been raised in this case, let us now have a look at IPR 1996. Clause 2, 4 in Part II of the IPR 1996 defines “Fixed Capital Invest¬ment” thus :- “Fixed Capital Investment” means investment in land, building, plant and machinery and other equipments of permanent nature.” Sales tax exemptions have been provided under the head “Sales tax” in paragraph 5. Paragraph 5.1 and 5.6, which are relevant for the present purpose, read : “5.1 Subject to operational guidelines instructions and procedure, sales tax incentives shall be allowed after the unit has gone into commercial production and from the date of commer¬cial production.” “5.6 All new small, medium and large scale industrial units will be eligible for exemption/deferment of sales tax on purchase of machineries, spare parts of machineries, raw materials, packaging materials and finished products in the manner indicated below : xxx xxx xxx (i) xxx xxx xxx (ii) For ‘priority industries’ the maximum limit of exemp¬tion/deferment of sales tax will be 200% of the fixed capital investment and the period of exemption/deferment will be extended by 2 additional years : Provided that in respect of electronic/telecommunication (hardware and software) industrial units the maximum limit of exemption/deferment of sales tax will be 250% of the fixed capi¬tal investment. (iii) For small scale industrial units with fixed capital investment not exceeding Rs.10.00 lakhs the maximum limit of exemption of sales tax will be 200% of the fixed capital invest¬ment and period of exemption will be extended by one additional year. (iii) For small scale industrial units with fixed capital investment not exceeding Rs.10.00 lakhs the maximum limit of exemption of sales tax will be 200% of the fixed capital invest¬ment and period of exemption will be extended by one additional year. xxx xxx xxx” “Priority industries”, as defined in paragraph 2.7 of the IPR 1996, are the categories of industrial units, as mentioned under sub-paragraphs (i) to (xvi) thereof and the project cost of each such industry shall not be less than Rs.1.00 crore, which means any industry in the aforesaid sector, if it has a project cost of more than Rs.1.00 crore, in terms of IPR 1996 and, ac¬cording to the petitioner, shall be entitled to the exemption as provided under paragraph 5.6 to the extent of 200% of the fixed capital investment. According to the petitioner, the IPR 1996 itself has defined what is fixed capital investment and the Industries Department before declaring an industry to be a prior¬ity industry makes an enquiry into the application submitted by the industry before granting the eligibility certificate, as is done in the case of the petitioner. 6. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the statement made in the counter affidavit filed by the Finance Department in Rishab’s case (supra), which is adopted in the present case, that all the priority industries under the IPR 1996 have been treated by the Finance Department either as medium or large industrial units, is wrong. Alterna¬tively it was argued that the Finance Department completely misunderstood in treating the project cost to be equivalent to fixed capital investment and as such treating the priority indus¬tries primarily as medium and large industrial unit was erroneous and not in conformity with the IPR 1996. Alterna¬tively it was argued that the Finance Department completely misunderstood in treating the project cost to be equivalent to fixed capital investment and as such treating the priority indus¬tries primarily as medium and large industrial unit was erroneous and not in conformity with the IPR 1996. It was further argued that the petitioner industry being a priority industry having a project cost of more than Rs.1.00 crore is to be treated as medium industrial unit for the purpose of Entry 43-A only be¬cause, as per the counter affidavit filed by the Finance Depar¬tment, all priority industries having project cost of more than Rs.1.00 crore have been treated as medium and large scale indus¬tries/units and as such have been included in Entry 43-A. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard placed reliance on the decision rendered in Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. v. State of A.P., (2005) 6 STC 292 : AIR 2005 SC 3073 , wherein the apex Court observed “......under the incentive scheme in question, there was only one method of verifying the eligibility for the various incentives granted including sales tax exemption. The procedure was for the matter to be scrutinized and recommended by the State Level Committee and District Level Committee and the certifica¬tion by the Department of Industries & Commerce by issuing an eligibility certificate. There was no other method prescribed under the scheme for determining an industrial unit’s eligibility for the benefits granted. The Department of Industries and Com¬merce having exercised in its mind, and having granted the final eligibility certificate (which was valid at all material times), the Commercial Taxes Department could not go beyond the same. .....” So, according to the petitioner, the action of the Sales Tax authorities in not treating the petitioner industrial unit as priority industry on the ground that the same does not fall within the purview of Entry 43-A (1) (a) and (b) of the Finance Department Notification dated 26.7.1996 is wrong. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon a decision of the apex Court in State of Bihar v. Suprabhat Steel Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 31 : (1999) 112 STC 258 (SC). In the aforesaid case, the Industrial Incentive Policy was issued by the State Govt. after such policy was approved by the Cabinet itself and the issuance of the notification under Section 7 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 was by the State Govt. In the aforesaid case, the Industrial Incentive Policy was issued by the State Govt. after such policy was approved by the Cabinet itself and the issuance of the notification under Section 7 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 was by the State Govt. in the Finance Department, which notifica¬tion as issued to carry out the objectives and the policy deci¬sions taken in the Industrial Policy itself. In this view of the matter, the Court held that any notification issued by the Govt. order in exercise of the powers under Section 7 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, if it would be found to be repugnant to the Industrial Policy declared in a Govt. resolution, then the noti¬fication must be held to be bad to that extent. Though several other decisions were also cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his stand, we have considered the aforesaid two decisions, which were mainly relied upon by him. 7. In reply, Shri Ashok Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite party-State Govt. in Finance Department as well as the Commercial Taxes Department, submitted that so far as the sales tax incentives are concerned, notifica¬tion has to be issued under the Orissa Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act in exercise of powers conferred on the State Govt. by the Legislature under Sections 6 and 7 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act. The statutory authorities in the State Govt. represented by Finance Department are charged with the responsibility of issuance of notification for statutory imple¬mentation and the Industries Department are charged with the responsibility of issuance of operational guidelines for adminis¬trative implementation. Thus, the petitioner would not be enti¬tled to any sales tax incentive merely on the basis of the IPR 1996, which would be clear from para 23 (1) of the said IPR. He further submitted that the subordinate legislation made by the notification is also law. In order to fortify his arguments, Shri Mohanty relied upon a decision of the apex Court in Video Elec¬tronic Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1990 SC 820 . According to Shri Mohanty, the notification having been made in accordance with the powers conferred by the statute has the statutory force and validity. In order to fortify his arguments, Shri Mohanty relied upon a decision of the apex Court in Video Elec¬tronic Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1990 SC 820 . According to Shri Mohanty, the notification having been made in accordance with the powers conferred by the statute has the statutory force and validity. He also submitted that the decision of the apex Court in Suprabhat Steel case (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because in Suprabhat Steel it was found that the Industrial Policy approved by the Cabinet did not contain the condition that the industrial units could avail the benefits, only if they had not availed any facili¬ty or benefits under any industrial promotion policy, but the statutory notification contained such a condition. In the present case, according to the Revenue, (i) there is no case of statutory notification falling foul of anything contained in the IPR and both are in harmony and (ii) the draft notification had been vetted by the Industries Department, which is the author of the IPR. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the oppo¬site parties that the decision in Vadilal Chemicals (supra) relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The learned counsel also submitted that no Court can issue a mandate to the Legislature to enact a particular law and similarly no Court can direct a subor¬dinate legislative body to enact or not to enact a law which it may be competent to enact. 8. From the above background facts and case laws pressed into service by the parties, we find that the IPR 1996 does not in any manner suggest that a priority unit could not be either in the small scale, medium scale or large scale industry category. Paragraph 5.6 of the IPR 1996 suggests that both “priority indus¬tries” and “Pioneer Units” are independent categories irrespec¬tive of the size such industries. That means ‘Priority’ or ‘Pioneer’ industries have reference to their nature and their status in terms of their contribution to the concerned industry. The expression “all” appearing before ‘priority industries’ in the proviso to Entry 43-A (1) (b) is significant. It is clear that all priority industries whether, small, medium or large, would fall within the said entry. Nothing more be read into it. The expression “all” appearing before ‘priority industries’ in the proviso to Entry 43-A (1) (b) is significant. It is clear that all priority industries whether, small, medium or large, would fall within the said entry. Nothing more be read into it. In this regard we may refer to a decision of the apex Court in the case of MRF Ltd., Kottayam v. Asst. Commissioner (Assessment) Sales Tax & others, JT 2006 (12) SC 244. In the aforesaid case MRF Ltd. made a huge investment in the State of Kerala under a promise held to it that it would be granted exemption from pay¬ment of sales tax for a period of seven years. It was granted the eligibility certificate. The exemption order had also been passed. It was held that it was not open to or permissible for the State Government to seek to deprive MRF of the benefits of tax exemption in respect of its substantial investment in expan¬sion. The impugned action on the part of the State Government was found by the Court to be highly unfair, unreasonable, and arbitr¬ary and, therefore, the same was held violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. The facts of the present case are similar to the facts of the case dealt with by the Supreme Court in MRF Ltd. (supra). Here is a case where basing upon the IPR 1996, the relevant notification dated 26.7.1996 (Annexure-20), the petitioner, as stated earlier, established its industry in village Saura in Khurda district for manufacture of Aluminium conductors; the industry started its commercial production from 2.11.2000 and the Industries Department issued the notification dated 2.2.1999 (Annexure-10) providing that all priority industries, which are entitled to the incentives under the IPR 1996, will have exemp¬tion for two additional years without any maximum limit. The Director of Industries also issued eligibility certificate for sales tax concession to the petitioner industry and the Sales Tax Officer intimated the petitioner that the petitioner industry was entitled to sales tax exemption with effect from 2.11.2000 basing upon which the petitioner industry was getting sales tax exemp¬tion. 9. The Director of Industries also issued eligibility certificate for sales tax concession to the petitioner industry and the Sales Tax Officer intimated the petitioner that the petitioner industry was entitled to sales tax exemption with effect from 2.11.2000 basing upon which the petitioner industry was getting sales tax exemp¬tion. 9. In view of the factual narration and following the legal principles settled in M.R.F. Ltd. (supra), as the petition¬er-company has made substantial investment and in fact enjoyed tax benefits for certain periods, the impugned action of the opposite parties holding that the petitioner’s industrial unit is not entitled to the exemptions in terms of Entry 43-A of the Sale Tax Exemption Notification dated 26.7.1996 of the Finance Depart¬ment is absolutely arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, we have no hesitation to allow the prayer of the petitioner by quashing Annexure-1A and declare that the petitioner industry is entitled to avail the sales tax exemption in accordance with the IPR 1996 and we accordingly do so. 10. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. We, however, make no order as to cost. A. K. SAMANTARAY, J. I agree. Petition allowed.