ORDER This order shall decide W.P. No. 18862 of 2010 (Surya Poly Bag Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P.) and W.P. No. 18863 of 2010 (Surya Poly Bag Pvt. Ltd. v. State of M.P.). This is the third round of the petitioner before this court for ventilation of grievance that it is entitled for the eligibility certificate vide notification dated October 6, 1994, issued by the State under section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, annexure P/1, filed with the petition. It is also alleged that the directions issued by this court in W.P. No. 4868 of 2002 dated September 11, 2003 were not complied with by the respondents and vide order dated March 30, 2010, the case of the petitioner was wrongly turned down for the eligibility certificate. The petitioner in this petition has prayed for the following reliefs against the respondents : "(i) to call for the records for the satisfaction of this honourable court. (ii) That it may please be held that the order of rejection of exemption application, i.e., annexure P/7 is illegal and void, a writ of certiorari may please be granted and annexure P/8 should be quashed. (iii) It may please be held that the petitioner is entitled for exemption as per notification dated October 6, 1994 and a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents to grant eligibility certificate to the petitioner. (iv) Any other relief which this honourable court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner along with cost of the petition." Facts of the case are that the petitioner is a private limited company engaged in manufacture of polypropylene blow molded containers, pet stretch molded containers, HDPE/PP/pet injection molded items. The petitioner's industry is located at Industrial Growth Center, Maneri, District Mandla. The petitioner is registered as a small-scale industry. The petitioner is claiming exemption under Notification No. A-3-24-94-STV (108) dated October 6, 1994 providing exemption scheme for new units. The petitioner for the purpose of exemption got its industry registered with the District Industries Centre, Mandla on March 15, 2000 for availing of financial assistance. The petitioner had taken possession of the land in industrial area after payment of Rs. 10.75 lakhs on June 3, 2000, purchased plant and machinery worth Rs. 4.95 lakhs and invested an amount of Rs. The petitioner had taken possession of the land in industrial area after payment of Rs. 10.75 lakhs on June 3, 2000, purchased plant and machinery worth Rs. 4.95 lakhs and invested an amount of Rs. 16.70 lakhs before June 9, 2000. The petitioner commenced its commercial production on December 21, 2000 which has been certified by the General Manager, District Industries Center, Maneri on May 30, 2001. A provisional exemption certificate from payment of sales tax was issued by the District Industries Center, Mandla, on June 15, 2001. The petitioner invested a total amount of Rs. 1.11 crores for the unit which has been certified by the chartered accountant. An amount of Rs. 14,05,000 was invested by the petitioner for the construction of the industry. The petitioner had already obtained an HT connection from MPEB. The petitioner had obtained licence from M.P. Pollution Control Board, Jabalpur, in respect of water and air. Its unit was also inspected by the Chief Inspector of Factories, M.P. and a certificate dated August 25, 2001 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner was registered with the Sales Tax Department with effect from June 24, 2000 and with the Central tax with effect from June 24, 2000. The petitioner was not granted eligibility certificate, so the petitioner filed a petition registered as W.P. No. 4868 of 2002 which was decided on September 11, 2003, in which in paras 3 to 5, this court directed thus : "(3) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as a result of this notification, the petitioners are affected despite of the fact that they have taken effective steps in pursuance of the notification dated October 6, 1994 though their commercial production came into being on October 20, 2000. It is put forth by him that by virtue of the said notification the unit is seriously affected as cut-off date has been provided. (4) Without getting into the constitutional validity of the notification a suggestion was given by the court to the learned counsel for the parties, if the petitioner has actually taken effective steps in pursuance of the notification dated October 6, 1994 and is covered from all quarters and angles should be given benefit or not. (4) Without getting into the constitutional validity of the notification a suggestion was given by the court to the learned counsel for the parties, if the petitioner has actually taken effective steps in pursuance of the notification dated October 6, 1994 and is covered from all quarters and angles should be given benefit or not. The learned Government Advocate for the State has clearly stated, as a special case, this can be given, but the petitioner has to prove strictly that he is covered essentially and effectively by the earlier notification. (5) We have been apprised at the Bar that assessment proceedings in some cases are in progress. The notification pertains to tax exemption. If the petitioner - assessee can suitably satisfy the assessing officer that his case is covered by the earlier notification, the benefit shall accrue in his favour." That the Commercial Tax Officer. Circle 3, District Jabalpur, passed an order against the petitioner which was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P. No. 163 of 2005. The Division Bench considering the earlier order passed in W.P. No. 4868 of 2002 quashed the aforesaid order and directed the Commercial Tax Officer, Circle 3, District Jabalpur, to pass a fresh order and to decide the matter in view of the directions issued in W.P. No. 4868 of 2002. As the Commercial Tax Officer also passed the assessment order against the petitioner, two petitions W.P. No. 9141 of 2009 and W.P. No. 9237 of 2009 (Sunpetpack Jabalpur Pvt. Ltd. Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh) were filed by the petitioner which were decided by a separate order dated September 23, 2009 with the direction to the General Manager, District Level Committee, to comply with the earlier order passed by this court. The General Manager, District Industries Committee, Mandla, vide order dated April 19, 2010 decided the matter and found that the petitioner was not entitled for eligibility certificate and turned down the application of the petitioner for issuance of the eligibility certificate. This order is under challenge in this petition. The General Manager, District Industries Committee, Mandla, vide order dated April 19, 2010 decided the matter and found that the petitioner was not entitled for eligibility certificate and turned down the application of the petitioner for issuance of the eligibility certificate. This order is under challenge in this petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the aforesaid order on the ground that as per notification, annexure P/2 dated October 6, 1994, the petitioner was entitled for exemption, but the General Manager by the impugned order decided the matter on the basis of the cut-off dates as found in para 3 of the order, while cut-off dates were not applicable in the case of the petitioner. As per notification, annexure P/1, the petitioner was entitled for an eligibility certificate, which has been wrongly turned down by the respondent. The cut-off dates which are in para 3 of the scheme are not applicable in the case of the petitioner as this clause deals with a different situations which are not applicable in the case of the petitioner. That, the case of the petitioner ought to have been decided in the light of the directions issued by this court in W.P. No. 4868 of 2003. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, the Government Advocate appearing for the State, opposed the aforesaid contention and submitted that : (i) As per annexure R/2, the petitioner purchased the unit of M/s. Card Board and Paper Products Co., which was auctioned by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the sale certificate R/2 dated July 10, 2000 was issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner got the ownership of the property only on July 10, 2000. So the petitioner was not entitled for exemption as the case of the petitioner falls in clause (II)(48) of the notification, annexure P/1, which provides that the facility of exemption from payment of tax under this notification shall not be available to a new industrial unit set up by transferring, shifting or dismantling or closing of existing unit within the State of Madhya Pradesh. (ii) He has also relied on para 3 of the notification and submitted that as per para 3 of the notification, the petitioner was not entitled for the exemption as it was applicable up to April 10, 1995, in respect of those units who had commenced their commercial production. (ii) He has also relied on para 3 of the notification and submitted that as per para 3 of the notification, the petitioner was not entitled for the exemption as it was applicable up to April 10, 1995, in respect of those units who had commenced their commercial production. (iii) The petitioner is having alternative remedy of filing appeal before the State Level Committee and without availing of such remedy, the petitioner has approached to this court and this petition may be dismissed with direction to the petitioner to avail of the alternative remedy as provided in clauses 9 and 10 of the scheme, annexure P/1. (iv) That, the petitioner has not taken any effective steps before the cut-off date and is not entitled for the eligibility certificate and the authorities have rightly passed the order, annexure P/8. Shri Purohit in reply to the aforesaid contentions submitted that though the petitioner purchased the unit in an auction but the auction was confirmed in favour of the petitioner on May 30, 2000 and possession of the property was handed over on June 3, 2000. Before issuance of notification, annexure P/2 on June 9, 2000, the petitioner had applied for registration and taken steps for the establishment of the industry and was entitled for the eligibility certificate. It is also submitted that the case of the petitioner cannot be considered in the light of notification dated 9th June, 2000, annexure P/2, in view of the specific direction issued by this court in W.P. No. 4868 of 2002 (annexure P/3). To appreciate rival contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate if the order dated September 11, 2003 in W.P. No. 4868 of 2002 is referred. In para 4 of the order, we find that the Division Bench of this court on the basis of concessions given by the Government Advocate directed the State to deal with the matter as a special case. The case of the petitioner was directed to be considered in the light of notification dated October 6, 1994, provided the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid notification dated October 6, 1994. The case of the petitioner was directed to be considered in the light of notification dated October 6, 1994, provided the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid notification dated October 6, 1994. The Division Bench on the basis of the concessions given by the Government Advocate disposed of the matter to decide it afresh and the assessing officer was directed to consider the case of the petitioner if it is covered by the earlier notification and to extend the benefit of the earlier notification. For ready reference paras 4, 5 and 6 of the order dated September 11, 2003 in W.P. No. 4868 of 2002 are quoted thus : "4. Without getting into the constitutional validity of the notification a suggestion was given by the court to the learned counsel for the parties, if the petitioner has actually taken effective steps in pursuance of the notification dated October 6, 1994 and is covered from all quarters and angles should be given benefit or not. The learned Government Advocate for the State has clearly stated, as a special case, this can be given, but the petitioner has to prove strictly that he is covered essentially and effectively by the earlier notification. 5. We have been apprised at the Bar that assessment proceedings in some cases are in progress. The notification pertains to tax exemption. If the petitioner - assessee can suitably satisfy the assessing officer that his case is covered by the earlier notification, the benefit shall accrue in his favour. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petitions stand disposed of without any order as to costs." In view of the aforesaid specific order passed by this court, the contention of Shri Samdarshi Tiwari has no merit. The aforesaid concession was specifically given by the Government Advocate before this court on September 11, 2003, when the earlier matter was decided. Now the aforesaid ground is not available to the State and the case of the petitioner deserves to be decided in the light of notification dated October 6, 1994. The aforesaid concession was specifically given by the Government Advocate before this court on September 11, 2003, when the earlier matter was decided. Now the aforesaid ground is not available to the State and the case of the petitioner deserves to be decided in the light of notification dated October 6, 1994. The District Industries Centre, Mandla, considered the case of the petitioner in the light of cut-off dates as provided in clause 3 of the notification and for ready reference, we are referring the aforesaid clause which reads as under : "3(i) (A dealer who establishes a new industrial unit on or after May 6, 1994 or who undertakes expansion in the existing industrial unit on or after such date) shall have the option to avail of the facility of deferment of payment of tax under the Madhya Pradesh Deferment of Payment of Tax Rules, 1994 in lieu of the facility of exemption from payment of tax under this notification. The option once exercised shall be final. (ii) A dealer who has taken effective steps for establishing a new industrial unit before the May 6, 1994 but who commences commercial production in such industrial unit on or after the said date shall have the option to avail of the facility of exemption from payment of tax under any scheme for extending similar facility to new industrial units in force before May 6, 1994. A dealer who exercises such option should commence commercial production in the industrial unit before April 1, 1995. On exercising such option and fulfilling the said requirement such dealer shall not be eligible to avail of the facility of exemption from payment of tax under this notification. A dealer who exercises such option should commence commercial production in the industrial unit before April 1, 1995. On exercising such option and fulfilling the said requirement such dealer shall not be eligible to avail of the facility of exemption from payment of tax under this notification. (iii) Any dealer who has taken effective steps before 6th May, 1994 for establishing a medium or large scale new industrial unit but has not commenced commercial production till that date he will have the option to avail of the facility of exemption from payment of tax under this notification, provided he refunds the amount of advance subsidy if obtained by him under the scheme of State capital investment subsidy then in force, before April 1, 1995." The aforesaid clause 3(i) specifically deals with different situations where the dealer who establishes a new industrial unit on or after 6th May, 1994 or who undertakes expansion in the existing industrial unit on or after such date shall have the option to avail of the facility of deferment of payment of tax under the Madhya Pradesh Deferment of Payment of Tax Rules, 1994 in lieu of the facility of exemption from payment of tax under this notification. It is not the case here. The petitioner never claimed for deferment of the payment of tax, so the sub-clause is not applicable in the present case. Sub-clause (ii) applies where effective steps were taken for establishing a new industrial unit before May 6, 1994, but who commences commercial production in such industrial unit on or after the said date, such dealer was having an option to avail of the facility of exemption from payment of tax under any scheme, to a new industrial units in force before May 6, 1994. But in the present case, the aforesaid position is not in existence and the said clause (ii) is also not available. Sub-clause (iii) deals the position whether any dealer who had taken effective steps before May 6, 1994 for establishing a medium or large scale new industrial unit, but has not commenced commercial production. The petitioner is a small-scale industry, so sub-clause (iii) of clause 3 is not applicable in the present case. Sub-clause (iii) deals the position whether any dealer who had taken effective steps before May 6, 1994 for establishing a medium or large scale new industrial unit, but has not commenced commercial production. The petitioner is a small-scale industry, so sub-clause (iii) of clause 3 is not applicable in the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the application filed by the State which was registered as M.C.C. No. 329 of 2006 in which in para 5 of the application, the State made the following averments : "That, lastly, the petitioners humbly submit that the concerned batch of four petitions has been disposed of by this honourable court on the basis of the concessions tendered on behalf of the petitioners in the peculiar circumstances. The directions are confined only to those four litigants as the judgment was not passed in rem. However, numbers of industries are approaching the petitioners to grant the same exemption by relaxing the cut-off date and if such exemption is granted to all then the public exchequer has to sustain huge financial loss. Thus, the applicability of the judgment deserves to be confined only to those 4 litigants who had approached honourable court." Referring aforesaid, it was submitted by Shri Purohit that there is an admission on the part of the State that the petitioner's was entitled for the benefit of the decision in W.P. No. 4868 of 2002 and the respondents decided the matter on wrong premises. The aforesaid contention of the petitioner appears to be correct and in view of the aforesaid averments made to this court, it appears that the petitioner's case ought to have been dealt with by the respondents as per notification dated October 6, 1994. In these circumstances, it appears that the case of the petitioner was wrongly decided by the General Manager, District Level Committee, vide order dated April 19, 2010 (annexure P/8), which order cannot be sustained under the law. In spite of the specific order passed by this court in W.P. 4868 of 2002 dated 11th September, 2003, it appears that the authority, who dealt with the matter earlier only reiterated its contention in the order and has not decided the matter as per order dated September 11, 2003. In spite of the specific order passed by this court in W.P. 4868 of 2002 dated 11th September, 2003, it appears that the authority, who dealt with the matter earlier only reiterated its contention in the order and has not decided the matter as per order dated September 11, 2003. At this Stage, Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State, submitted that it would be appropriate if the matter is referred to the State Level Committee who can consider the case of the petitioner more effectively, properly for grant of eligibility certificate and in accordance with the order dated September 11, 2003. On this contention Shri Purohit, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that he has no objection if the matter is remanded to the State Level Committee for reconsideration. In view of the aforesaid, the decision of the District Level Committee dated February 1, 2010, annexure P/8 is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the State Level Committee to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of eligibility certificate in light of direction issued by this court in W.P. No. 4868 of 2002. It is also made clear that the State Level Committee shall consider the case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the notification dated October 6, 1994. The petitioner may submit additional facts to take benefit of notification dated October 6, 1994, if any, before the State Level Committee within 30 days from today. The State Level Committee shall decide the matter expeditiously as far as possible within a period of four months from today. Before deciding the matter finally, the State Level Committee may extend an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, it shall be within the domain of the State Level Committee to extend such an opportunity. After decision of the State Level Committee, the decision shall be communicated to the petitioner by speed post. In this case while entertaining this petition, an interim order was passed on December 16, 2010, by which it was directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for recovery of outstanding demand of the Commercial Tax Department, the aforesaid direction shall continue till the decision by the State Level Committee. No order as to costs.