JUDGMENT : ALI MOHD. MAGREY, J. 1. These two writ petitions, filed by one and the same petitioner involving identical facts and common questions of law, have been heard together and are being dealt with by this common judgment. In first of the two writ petitions, viz. OWP No. 469/2002, the petitioners have challenged Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.02.1983; Notification SRO 86, dated 12.02.1984; and Govt. Order No. 81-Ind of 1984, dated 12.02.1984. In the second writ petition, OWP No. 640/2006, the petitioners have challenged Govt. Order No. 43 of 2006, dated 24.02.2006 issued by the respondents, purportedly, in compliance of the interim direction dated 28.12.2002 passed by the Court in OWP No. 469/2002. Narration of the facts pertinent to the matter and the grievance of the petitioners become imperative, and is given hereafter. 2. Way back in 1971, the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, in a endeavour to attract entrepreneurs to set up large and medium scale industries in the State, issued Order No. 159-Ind of 1971, dated 26.03.1971 providing certain incentives to such industries. One such incentive was grant of exemption from State sales tax both on raw materials and finished products for a period of five years from the date a unit would go into production. This order was partially modified by Govt. Order No. 414-Ind of 1971, dated 25.08.1971 to the extent of its Clause 2. The modifying order read as under: "In partial modification of Govt. Order No. 159-Ind of 1971, dated 26.3.1971, item 2 may be read as under: 2. Grant of exemption from the Sales tax both on raw materials and finished products. The State Sales tax paid by large and medium scale industries on the raw materials procured by them from the initial 5 years of the production would be refunded to such industries. Similarly such industries will be granted exemption from the payment of any State sales tax on their finished products for a period of five years from the date the unit goes into production." The Government also took numerous other measures to motivate the leading businessmen throughout the country to set up industries in the State and promised them the incentives propagated by the aforesaid Government orders. These included holding of seminars and lecture programmes and one to one conversation with businessmen by none other than the Chief Minister of the State at the major metropolitan cities of the country, and distribution of material suggesting the keenness and resolve of the Government to encourage industrialization in the State. 3. It is the case of the petitioner-company that lured by the representations, promises and assurances so made by the State Government, its Chairman visited the State, held talks with the concerned State functionaries and, thereafter, submitted its project report for setting up of a medium scale integrated industrial unit for production of terpene and Resin derivatives at Jammu. On approval of such project by the concerned authority, eight acres of land in the industrial complex at Bari-Brahmana, Jammu, were allotted in favour of the petitioner-company. Simultaneously, the State Forest Department and the petitioner-company entered into an agreement whereby the Government agreed to supply 4000 Metric Tons of Oleo Resin Gum, i.e., the raw material, annually to the petitioner-company initially for a period often years. The petitioner-company completed the installation and setting up of the first medium scale industrial unit in July, 1979 and it started its commercial production with effect from 15.09.1979. Petitioner-company started lifting the raw material of Resin from the State Forest Department from June, 1979. 4. Thereafter, it is averred in the petition that the petitioner-company established four other medium scale industrial units in the State at the allotted site. It is stated that the second industrial unit for manufacture of synthetic Resin, like Calcium Rosinate, Penta Estergum, Phenolic Resins, Malic Resins etc. was registered under registration No. DGTD/HQ/B/S-24/R/10025/C/27(III)/SC/82, dated 20.08.1982 and this unit started its production with effect from 26.3.1982. 5. It is averred in the petition that having started lifting of raw material from the Forest Department from June, 1979, petitioner-company paid huge sums of money as sales tax thereon during the years 1979-80 and 1980-81. Therefore, the petitioner-company and other similarly placed entrepreneurs are stated to have claimed refund of the tax so paid by them on the purchase of raw materials, which were duly processed resulting in passing of Cabinet Decision No. 417, dated 06.10.1981 to the effect that the sales tax collected from the medium and large industrial units for processing of Resin for the year 1979-80 and 1980-81 be released in favour of the entrepreneurs by instalments. This was followed by Govt. Order No. 444-II PAC/81, dated 22.10.1981 (read with Govt. Order No. 444-GIPAC/81, dated 22.10.1981) wherein it was further said that orders regarding the modalities of the refund of the State sales tax will be issued separately in consultation with the Finance Department. 6. The issue of the modalities of the refund was discussed in the 2nd meeting of the Cabinet Standing Committee on Industrial and Commerce Department held on 21st, 22nd and 23rd January, 1982. It was decided therein that the amounts refundable in favour of the entrepreneurs on account of State sales tax collected from them on the raw materials be adjusted against the cost of raw material which may be supplied by the Forest Department to the large and medium sector Resin processing units in future. In this connection, the Additional Secretary to Government, Industries and Commerce Department, addressed UO No. 24-11-AC/79, dated 28.01.1982 to the Secretary to Government, Finance Department, with request to issue necessary instructions to the Forest Department. The aforesaid UO also detailed out the figures of sales tax paid by four large and medium sector Resin processing units on raw materials during the years 1979-80 and 1980-81, which are quoted hereunder: “Name of the Resin Processing Unit Year Amount paid M/s Dujodwala Resins & Terpenses Ltd. 1979-80 10,43,686.85 1980-81 30,38,750.00 M/s Prabhat Turpenes & Synthetic Ltd. 1.4.1979 to 31.3.1981 30,68,927.86 M/s Pine Chemicals Ltd. 1979-80 12,96,462.31 1980-1981 38,99,314.88 Total : 1,23,47,141.90 M/s JK Industries Ltd. 1979-80 16,00,250.08 1980-81 49,71,992.67 Total : 65,72,242.72” In this connection, Cabinet Decision No. 161, dated 26.04.1982 came to be passed to the effect that the sales tax collected from the large and medium scale industrial units be refunded to them over the next three years against the purchase of Resin which they will make from the Forest Department. 7. 7. Consequent to the above, the Government issued notification, SRO 368, dated 06.09.1982 which is quoted hereunder: "GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR FINANCE DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION Srinagar, the 6th September, 1982 SRO 368.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962 (Act No. XX of 1962), the Government hereby exempt raw material on Resin, used by the large and medium scale units processing the same and located in the Jammu & Kashmir State, which are registered with the Jammu & Kashmir Department of Industries & Commerce, from payment of tax leviable under the said Act for a period of two years. This notification shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 1.4.1982 and shall remain operative till 31.3.1984. The tax, if any, paid from 1.4.1982 to the date of this notification shall be refundable. By order of the Government of Jammu & Kashmir." 8. Notwithstanding the above, the Director, Finance Department (IFG&RD), vide his UO No. ET-16-ST/81-938, dated 08.09.1982, wrote to the Secretary to Government, Industries & Commerce, and the Chief Conservator of Forests, J&K, Srinagar, to ensure that only two-thirds of the amount due for refund was allowed in the current financial year and the cost on account of the Resin supplied beyond two-thirds adjustment was recovered in cash and that the balance amount due for refund, which would be one-third of the liability, would be allowed in the next financial year, i.e., on or after 01.04.1983 by adjustment of the value of stocks of Resin for which payments will be due. 9. In the interregnum, in January, 1981 the petitioner-company prepared the project report for its 3rd medium scale industrial unit and placed orders for machinery to be installed. The unit was registered under No. DGTD/HQ/B/S-24/R-10025/G-27, on 13.01.1983 for manufacture of Pineoil, Pinetar, Terpineol, DD Turpentine and Dipentine. This unit is stated to have started commercial production with effect from 02.06.1983. 10. However, on 26.02.1983, the Government issued Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, purporting it to be in super-session of all previous orders, providing a new package of incentives as per annexure to the said order to be applicable to the existing and new large/medium/small scale and tiny industrial units. Paragraph 2 of the order read as under: "2. 10. However, on 26.02.1983, the Government issued Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, purporting it to be in super-session of all previous orders, providing a new package of incentives as per annexure to the said order to be applicable to the existing and new large/medium/small scale and tiny industrial units. Paragraph 2 of the order read as under: "2. Such of the Industrial Units which have partly availed of the package of incentives, sanctioned under Govt. Order No. 391-IND of 1972, dated 21.6.1972, and subsequent orders issued in amplification thereof, as well as such units which have become entitled to the availment of the earlier package of incentives, shall have the option to get benefit under the new package of incentives, sanctioned hereunder, for the remaining period of their entitlement." It may be mentioned here that Govt. Order No. 391-IND of 1972, dated 21.06.1972, referred to in paragraph 2 above, related only to the Small Scale Industrial Units. However, the Government order dated 26.02.1983 also spoke about those industrial units which had become entitled to the availment of the earlier package of incentives, and this certainly is referable to the incentives provided under the 1971 Government orders. That means, such of the industrial units as had become entitled to availment of incentives under the 1971 Government orders could opt for either the new package or continue with the earlier package of incentives for the remaining period of their entitlement. 11. However, in the annexure to the aforesaid Government Order dated 26.02.1983, clause XII/XIII provided as under: "XII/XIII. GST/CST/Additional Toll Tax on SSI Units and Medium/Large Units: (i) No GST shall be charged on any raw material purchased by any industrial unit except on items brought on a negative list". Thereafter, on 12.03.1984, the Government issued SRO 86, purporting to be in exercise of powers conferred by Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962 directing that notifications, SRO 368, dated 06.09.1982 and SRO 236, dated 9.6.1982 (the latter one related to SSI Units) shall and shall be deemed to have always been rescinded. Thereafter, on 12.03.1984, the Government issued SRO 86, purporting to be in exercise of powers conferred by Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962 directing that notifications, SRO 368, dated 06.09.1982 and SRO 236, dated 9.6.1982 (the latter one related to SSI Units) shall and shall be deemed to have always been rescinded. The notification is quoted hereunder: "GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR FINANCE DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION Jammu, the 12th March 1984 SRO 86.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962 (Act No. XX of 1962), the Government hereby direct that Notification SRO 368, dated 6.9.1982 and SRO 236, dated 9.6.1982 shall and shall be deemed to have always been rescinded. By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir." 12. On the very same day, the Government issued Order No. 81-Ind of 1984, ordering that Govt. Order No. 444-IIPAC/81 of 1981, dated 20.10.1981 shall be deemed to have been rescinded as if it was never issued. The order is quoted hereunder: "Government of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Secretariat Industries & Commerce Department Sub: Payment of sales tax on Resin Ref: Cabinet Decision No. 22, dated 20.2.1984 Govt. Order No. 81-Ind of 1984, dated 12.3.1984 Whereas vide Govt. Order No. 159-IND of 1971, dated 26.3.1971 read with Govt. Order No. 414-IND of 1971, dated 26.8.1971, certain incentives were allowed to the medium and large scale industrial units in the State which, inter alia, provided refund of General Sales Tax paid on raw material and exemption from State sales tax on finished products for a period of five years; and Whereas the Government after reviewing the position from time to time by reference to different classes of industrial units decided vide their orders issued in 1979, 1981 to levy sales tax on the Resin and its finished products in public interest and fixed rates from time to time; and Whereas consistent with the Government's policy to provide concession to the industrial units except the class of unit holders which in public interest did not deserve such concession issued notifications including number of industrial units in the negative list vide Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.2.1983 in which, inter alia, the Resin based industrial units were also included and, therefore, the Government deems it fit in public interest to rescind the Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.2.1983 in which, inter alia, the Resin based industrial units were also included and, therefore, the Government deems it fit in public interest to rescind the Govt. Order No. 444-IIPAC/81 of 1981, dated 20.10.1981. It is, therefore, ordered that the aforementioned Government Order, namely, 444-IIPAC/81 of 1981, dated 20.10.1981 be deemed to have been rescinded as if it was never issued. By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir." 13. Subsequent to the issuance of the aforesaid notification, SRO 86, and Govt. Order No. 81-Ind of 1984, dated 12.3.1984, the respondents issued Demand Notices bearing Nos. 1445-46, dated 23.3.1984, 3916-17, dated 24.3.1984 and 2305-6, dated 25.3.1984 to the petitioner-company demanding payment of price of the Resin and surcharge allegedly payable by it for the years 1979-80 to 1981-82. 14. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.2.1983, the Notification, SRO 86, dated 12.3.1984, Govt. Order No. 81-Ind of 1984, dated 12.3.1984 and the Demand Notices so issued to the petitioner-company referred to above, it filed writ petition, OWP No. 277/1984, before this Court. In the said writ petition, the Court on 20.4.1984 passed an interim order staying the operation of above two Government orders, the SRO and the Demand Notices. Subsequently, on 25.04.1984, the Court also allowed the prayer of the petitioner-company to direct the respondents to continue supplying Resin as before treating the impugned orders to be non-est with specific stipulation that the respondents, their officers, servants or their agents shall not withhold or discontinue the supply of Resin in any manner to the petitioners for non-payment of amount mentioned in clause (b) of the prayer clause. 15. The aforesaid writ petition was later disposed of by a short order made by the Court on 30.6.1998, which is quoted hereunder: "Mr. D.S. Thakur Advocate General. Petitioner is claiming exemption in terms of notification issued in the year 1971 and some other notifications. This aspect of the matter has been considered in detail in Writ Petition No. 271-A of 1984, Pine Chemical Limited decided on 30.6.1998. D.S. Thakur Advocate General. Petitioner is claiming exemption in terms of notification issued in the year 1971 and some other notifications. This aspect of the matter has been considered in detail in Writ Petition No. 271-A of 1984, Pine Chemical Limited decided on 30.6.1998. The conclusions arrived at in the above writ petition are as under: (i) that the petitioner would be entitled to all those benefits which were granted by the Supreme Court of India in the case reported as Pine Chemical v. Assessing Authority, 85 (1992) SCT 432; (ii) benefits would be available to those industries which was set up after the notification issued in the year 1971; (iii) benefits of notification issued in the year 1982 would not be available for two reasons. These are: (a) this was not allowed by Supreme Court of India in Pine Chemical case (supra); (b) any industry set up before issuance of this notification cannot contend that concept of promissory estoppel should be extended to it. (iv) benefits would be available only to those industries which were established for the first time. Where a unit was expanded then that would not be entitled to the benefit. Respondent-authorities would accordingly examine the entire matter. If any exemption has become available to the petitioner company then that would be determined and benefits thereof would be passed on to the concerned petitioner. Petition stands disposed of in the same term." 16. Meanwhile, the petitioner-company states that it set up and established two more medium scale industrial units. In this connection, it is stated, that provisional registration of the 4th unit was obtained in the year 1986 and the permanent registration thereof was granted on 21.08.1989. The said industrial unit, it is stated, commenced commercial production of Camphor and allied products with effect from 05.03.1988. It is further stated that the petitioner-company established its 5th unit in terms of Registration No. 1751/SIA/IMO/93, dated 11.06.1993 and that the said unit started its production on 26.06.1993. 17. The case of the petitioner-company in OWP No. 469/2002, is that it paid a total amount of Rs. 5,58,38,271.00 as State sales tax on the purchase of the raw material/Resin utilized in its five industrial units and has been approaching the respondents with representations from time to time for refund of the said sales tax so paid by it, but the respondents did not refund the said amount. 5,58,38,271.00 as State sales tax on the purchase of the raw material/Resin utilized in its five industrial units and has been approaching the respondents with representations from time to time for refund of the said sales tax so paid by it, but the respondents did not refund the said amount. In this connection, it is stated that the claims of the petitioner-company were examined by the Director, Industries and Commerce, who, finding them substantive, approved the same and conveyed it to the Principal Secretary and Secretary to Government, Industries and Commerce Department vide letter No. DI&C/PS/99/130, dated 25.8.1999. It is stated that the Government also obtained expert legal opinion on the issue, yet the respondents did not refund the amount in question to the petitioner-company, despite the direction passed by this Court in the writ petition, OWP No. 277/1984. Hence the writ petition, OWP No. 469/2002, for the reliefs already set out hereinabove. 18. The respondents in the very first paragraph of their reply stated that Govt. Order No. 159-Ind of 1971, dated 26.03.1971 and Govt. Order No. 414-Ind of 1971, dated 25.08.1971 are, in fact, the package of incentives to large and medium scale industries in the State, and that grant of exemption from State sales tax, both on raw material and finished products, for a period of 5 years from the date a unit went into production, was part of the incentives provided by these Government orders. 19. While admitting that the package of incentives, including exemption on State sales tax on raw material, was granted under the 1971 orders, the respondents proceed to state that SRO 369 of 1982, was issued on 06.09.1982 whereunder the Government allowed exemption on raw material of Resin used by large and medium scale units processing the same from payment of General Sales Tax for a period of two years with effect from 01.04.1982. The said notification was to remain in operation till 31.03.1984. However, in 1983, in super-session of all previous orders regarding package of incentives, the Government promulgated revised package of incentives vide Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.02.1983. According to the respondents, the said Government Order introduced a negative list, and that the incentive in the form of exemption of GST/CST and Toll Tax was not available to the items brought on the negative list. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.02.1983. According to the respondents, the said Government Order introduced a negative list, and that the incentive in the form of exemption of GST/CST and Toll Tax was not available to the items brought on the negative list. According to the respondents, Resin was one of the items brought on the negative list. 20. It is stated that since on issuance of the Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.02.1983, the earlier government orders and SROs were superseded and became redundant, the Government in the Finance Department, vide SRO 86 of 1984, dated 12.03.1984, directed that SRO 368 of 1982, shall and shall be deemed to have always been rescinded. On the very same day, Government issued Order No. 81-Ind of 1984, whereby Govt. Order No. 444-IIPAC/81, dated 20.10.1981 was rescinded. 21. In paragraph 6 of the reply, it is stated that the petitioner-company challenged the aforesaid Government orders in OWP No. 277/1984. Interim stay was granted in the said writ petition which continued till the final disposal of the writ petition in the year 1998. Some other industrial units also challenged the said Government orders in this Hon'ble Court and the matter went upto the Apex Court. The Apex Court in case of M/S Pine Chemicals v. State held that the Government orders of 1971 have the force of notification issued under section 5 of the General Sales Tax Act and that the petitioners were held entitled to the exemption for the period of five years as provided under these orders. This Court, while deciding the petitioner-company's writ petition, OWP No. 277/1984, applied the ratio of the aforesaid judgment delivered by the Apex Court and held that the petitioner would be entitled to all those benefits mentioned by the Apex Court in the aforesaid Case. 22. It is stated that after receipt of the judgment of this Court dated 30.06.1998 and also the representation of the petitioner-company, the claim for refund was considered by the Government at different levels and opinions of some legal experts were also sought. It was concluded that petitioner-company's claim for refund of sales tax, except for those units which had commenced production prior to Government order No. 54-Ind of 1983, was not legally sustainable. It was concluded that petitioner-company's claim for refund of sales tax, except for those units which had commenced production prior to Government order No. 54-Ind of 1983, was not legally sustainable. However, it is stated that before any formal order of any final decision could be issued, the petitioner rushed to file the present writ petition. 23. Respondents have stated that the present writ petition is barred by principle of res judicata as the matter in issue and the reliefs claimed have been directly and substantially in issue in writ petition, OWP No. 277/1984. It is also stated that the present writ petition has been filed without any cause of action as no order was passed by the Government. Therefore, it is stated that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 24. It is further stated that SRO 86 of 1984, was issued because the earlier SRO 368 of 1982, had become redundant in view of the issuance of new industrial policy in terms of Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, which superseded all earlier Government orders and notifications on the subject. According to the respondents, all Resin based industries were brought on the negative list. The third, fourth and fifth unit of the petitioner-company, termed by the respondents as third, fourth and the fifth phases, are stated to have commenced commercial production after the Resin based industries had been brought on negative list. According to the respondents the industrial units which went into production after 26.02.1983 are not covered by the judgment in M/S Pine Chemicals' case and that no promise or assurance was extended to the petitioner-company under any Government order at the time when these phases went into production because the 1971 orders were applicable to only those units which were in existence prior to 26.02.1983. 25. It may be mentioned here that in view of the statement of the respondents made in paragraph 7 of the reply wherein it was stated that the petitioners' claim for refund of sales tax, except for those units which had commenced production prior to Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, was not legally sustainable, the Court on 28.12.2002 passed an interim order directing the respondents to see if this claim of the petitioners was considered and speaking order was passed in this behalf. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, was not legally sustainable, the Court on 28.12.2002 passed an interim order directing the respondents to see if this claim of the petitioners was considered and speaking order was passed in this behalf. Pursuant to the said order, the respondents passed Government Order No. 43-Ind of 2006, dated 24.02.2006, determining the petitioner-company's entitlement to refund of Rs. 8.36 lakhs, and holding that the claims allegedly for other units pertained to the period during which exemption/refund was not available, apart from being expansion of the existing unit only. 26. The petitioner-company challenged the aforesaid Government Order No. 43-Ind of 2006, dated 24.02.2006 in the subsequent writ petition, OWP No. 640/2006, almost on the same facts and grounds as taken in the earlier writ petition, OWP No. 469/2002. 27. The respondents have filed their reply to the writ petition, OWP No. 640/2006, as well, reiterating their stand as taken in response to OWP No. 469/2002. 28. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and considered the matter. 29. The sum and substance of the petitioner-company's case is that it set up five medium scale Resin based industrial units from time to time between the years 1979 to 1993 on the promise and assurance of the State Government that, inter alia, the State sales tax charged on the raw material/Resin utilized in the said industrial units for five years would be refunded. The dates of completion of construction/setting up/registration of these units and the respective dates of commencement of their production are stated to be as hereunder given: Unit Date on which set up/Date of registration Date of production 1 st July, 1979 15.09.1979 2 nd 20.08.1982 26.03.1982 3 rd 13.01.1983 02.06.1983 4 th 1986 05.03.1988 5 th 11.06.1993 26.06.1993 It is submitted that the petitioner-company is entitled to refund of the State sales tax paid by it to the State Forest Department on the purchase of raw material/Resin used by it in the manufacturing activity in each of the aforesaid industrial units for five years each from the dates these respectively commenced commercial production. It is stated that the petitioner-company paid a total amount of Rs. 5,58,38,271.00 as State sales tax to the Forest Department on this count. It is stated that the petitioner-company paid a total amount of Rs. 5,58,38,271.00 as State sales tax to the Forest Department on this count. It is contended that the respondents cannot deprive the petitioner-company of the refund of the aforesaid amount and that they have a right to its refund on the principle of promissory estoppel in respect of all the five units. To buttress its claim, reference is made by the petitioner-company to the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Pine Chemicals Ltd. v. Assessing Authority, (1992) 2 SCC 683 , and the order dated 30.06.1998 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court while disposing of the petitioner-company's earlier writ petition, OWP No. 277/1984, as well as the interim orders dated 20.4.1984 and 25.4.1984 passed in the aforesaid writ petition staying the operation of the SRO and Governments orders impugned therein. 30. The respondents contest the claim of the petitioner-company on several grounds most of which are mutually destructive or contrary to what the Supreme Court held in M/s. Pine Chemicals Ltd. v. Assessing Authority (supra). For instance, in their reply to OWP No. 469/2002, the respondents have stated that SRO 369 of 1982, issued on 06.09.1982, whereunder the Government allowed exemption on raw material of Resin used by large and medium scale units from payment of General Sales Tax for a period of two years with effect from 01.04.1982, was to remain in operation till 31.03.1984 and that in 1983, in supersession of all previous orders regarding package of incentives, the Government promulgated revised package of incentives vide Government Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.02.1983 which introduced a negative list of items, including Resin, on which the incentive of exemption of GST/CST and Toll Tax was not available. It is sought to be contended that since on issuance of the Government Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.02.1983, the earlier government orders and SROs were superseded, the Government in the Finance Department, vide SRO 86 of 1984, dated 12.03.1984 directed that SRO 368 of 1982, which exempted raw material of Resin from levy of sales tax for two years, shall be deemed to have always been rescinded, and, consequently, Government Order No. 81-Ind of 1984, too, was issued whereby Govt. Order No. 444-IIPAC/81, dated 20.10.1981 was rescinded. 31. Order No. 444-IIPAC/81, dated 20.10.1981 was rescinded. 31. Thus, the respondents have made a feeble attempt to put up a case that the Resin based large and medium scale industrial units were granted exemption vide SRO 368 of 1982, dated 06.09.1982 for two years and that, in view of the change in the package of incentives ordered vide Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.02.1983, the said SRO was withdrawn having become redundant. It is sought to be contended that for that reason, the petitioner-company is not entitled to refund of the State sales tax collected from it on the raw material purchased by it. While trying to contend so, the respondents in the very first paragraph of their reply stated that Govt. Order No. 159-Ind of 1971, dated 26.03.1971 and Govt. Order No. 414-Ind of 1971, dated 25.08.1971 are, in fact, the package of incentives to large and medium scale industries in the State, and that grant of exemption from State sales tax, both on raw material and finished products, for a period of 5 years from the date a unit went into production, was part of the incentives provided by these Government orders. Not only this, in paragraph No. 7 of the reply it is unambiguously admitted by the respondents that petitioner-company's claim for refund of sales tax for those units which had commenced production prior to Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, was sustainable. Thus the respondents have taken mutually contradictory and destructive pleas. 32. The fact of the matter is that the incentive of refund of State sales tax paid on purchase of raw materials was granted by 1971 Government orders, not in terms SRO 368 of 1982, dated 06.09.1982. In this connection, it may be mentioned that when the petitioner-company and such other similarly placed entrepreneurs submitted the claims for refund of the State sales tax paid on the purchase of raw material/Resin initially during the years 1979-80 and 1980-81, the respondents failed to release the same in their favour. Efforts made by the entrepreneurs in that behalf lead to Cabinet Decisions No. 417, dated 06.10.1981 which said that State sales tax collected from such industrial units for the years 1979-80 and 1980-81 be released in their favour by instalments. It was followed by Govt. Order No. 444-11 PAC/81, dated 22.10.1981 read with Govt. Order No. 444-GIPAC/81, dated 22.10.1981. Efforts made by the entrepreneurs in that behalf lead to Cabinet Decisions No. 417, dated 06.10.1981 which said that State sales tax collected from such industrial units for the years 1979-80 and 1980-81 be released in their favour by instalments. It was followed by Govt. Order No. 444-11 PAC/81, dated 22.10.1981 read with Govt. Order No. 444-GIPAC/81, dated 22.10.1981. However, later on, in terms of UO No. 24-11-AC/79, dated 28.01.1982 from Additional Secretary to Government, Industries and Commerce Department, to the Secretary to Government, Finance Department, instead of refunding, the amount due to the entrepreneurs on this count was ordered to be adjusted against the cost of raw material/Resin to be supplied to such entrepreneurs in future by the Forest Department. To this effect Cabinet Decision No. 161, dated 26.04.1982 was also passed which said that the amount be refunded by adjustment over the next three years. When the Government decided to adjust the State sales tax in favour of the entrepreneurs against the cost of Resin to be supplied in next three years instead of making its refund in cash, it was but natural and in the Government's own interest that, in order to limit its liability to refund and ensure that such liabilities of the Government did not accumulate beyond manageable proportions, no fresh State sales tax was charged from the entrepreneurs. It would have been preposterous for the State Government, on the one hand, to make an endeavour to liquidate its outstanding of the entrepreneurs on account of the State sales tax, collected from them during the previous years, in three future years and, on the other hand, to continue to collect such tax from them to escalate the liabilities. Clearly, therefore, with a view to meeting this situation, the Government issued Notification, SRO 368, dated 06.09.1982 exempting raw material of Resin used by large and medium scale industrial units from payment of tax leviable under the General Sales Tax Act, 1962 for a period of two years with effect from 01.04.1982 to 31.03.1984. Apparently, it was more aimed at easing out the burden that had accumulated on the Government on account of its failure to refund the State sales tax to such entrepreneurs than providing any further motivational facility or incentive to the industrialists. Apparently, it was more aimed at easing out the burden that had accumulated on the Government on account of its failure to refund the State sales tax to such entrepreneurs than providing any further motivational facility or incentive to the industrialists. This order did not introduce any new incentive, but was only a reiteration of what had been represented, assured and promised in terms of the 1971 Government orders. It is to be borne in mind that Govt. Order No. 159-Ind of 1971, dated 26.3.1971, in terms of its 2nd Clause, had granted exemption from State sales tax on raw materials for a period of five years from the date a unit would go into production, and the order was later modified in terms of Govt. Order No. 414-Ind of 1971, dated 25.8.1971 to say that the amount on that count would be refunded. When Notification, SRO 368, dated 06.09.1982 was issued, it did not either expressly or impliedly revoke, rescind, modify or supersede the two 1971 orders, namely, Govt. Order No. 159-Ind of 1971, dated 26.3.1971 and the modifying Govt. Order No. 414-Ind of 1971, dated 25.8.1971. It is, therefore, incorrect to say that the incentive of exemption of State sales tax was provided under Notification, SRO 368, dated 06.09.1982. Revocation of this SRO would not, therefore, affect the rights of the petitioner-company accruing under the 1971 Government orders. 33. Then it is sought to be contended that the Government issued Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.02.1983 in supersession of all previous notifications and Government orders which introduced negative list of items and that Resin was one of such items mentioned in the negative list. According to the respondents, the petitioner-company, therefore, is not entitled to refund of the State sales tax collected from it on the raw materials purchased by it. Such a contention is wholly contrary to what the aforesaid Government Order dated 26.02.1983 has expressly said in its first two paragraphs, which for facility of reference are quoted hereunder: "In super-session of all previous orders, it is ordered that the package of incentives as per Annexure to this order will now be applicable to the existing and new large medium/small scale and tiny industrial units. 2. Such of the industrial units which have partly availed of the package of incentives, sanctioned under Govt. 2. Such of the industrial units which have partly availed of the package of incentives, sanctioned under Govt. Order No. 391-Ind of 1972, dated June 21, 1972 and subsequent orders issued in amplification thereof, as well as such units which have become entitled to the availment of the earlier package of incentives shall have the option to get benefit under the new package of incentives sanctioned hereunder for the remaining period of their entitlement." (Underlining supplied) The aforesaid underlined portion of paragraph 2 of the Government Order makes it abundantly clear that those of the industrial units which had become entitled to the availment of the earlier package of incentives granted in terms of the 1971 Government orders were given an option to get the benefit under the new package of incentives for the remaining period of their entitlement. If in terms of the aforesaid 1983 package of incentives there was no such incentive available for Resin based industrial units, how could an existing unit, which had become entitled to the availment of the earlier package of incentives, exercise the option afforded by the said Government order to get the benefit for the remaining period of entitlement. The Government order clearly was prospective in nature and, in any case, would not take away the right of the existing industrial units to continue to enjoy the benefit, for, the Government was estopped from doing so on the principle of promissory estoppel. At this stage, it would be advantageous to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Pine Chemicals Ltd. v. Assessing Authority (supra). 34. In that case, three Resin-based entrepreneurs, namely, M/s. Pine Chemicals Ltd.; M/s. K.C. Vanaspati; and M/s. Kashmir Vanaspati Limited, who had set up their industrial units in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, like the petitioner, were the appellants before the Supreme Court. They in their writ petitions before this Court had challenged the assessment orders and/or notices made/issued by the Assessing Authority, Sales Tax Circle concerned. They had also prayed for a declaration that they were entitled to exemption from payment of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act and the J&K General Sales Tax Act, 1962 on the finished goods produced by them for a period of five years from the date commercial production had commenced. They had also prayed for a declaration that they were entitled to exemption from payment of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act and the J&K General Sales Tax Act, 1962 on the finished goods produced by them for a period of five years from the date commercial production had commenced. This main relief was based on the grounds that they were exempted from payment of sales tax in terms of Govt. Order No. 159-Ind, dated 26.3.1971 as amended by Govt. Order No. 414-Ind, dated 25.8.1971. Their further case was that the government was estopped from charging sales tax on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. 35. The writ petitions were dismissed by this Court, holding that the two 1971 Government orders, namely, Govt. Order No. 159-Ind, dated 26.3.1971 and Govt. Order No. 414-Ind, dated 25.8.1971, were only declarations of an intention to exempt from payment of sales tax; they were not exemption notifications under Section 5 of the General Sales Tax Act and that the appellants had failed to prove the necessary factual foundation for invoking the principle of promissory estoppel; therefore, they were not entitled to any relief under that doctrine. Against that judgment, the three writ petitioners filed SLPs before the Supreme Court which were decided by a common judgment with M/s. Pine Chemicals Ltd. v. Assessing Authority (supra) being the lead case. 36. The first question that arose before the Supreme Court for consideration in the aforesaid cases was whether Govt. Order No. 159-Ind, dated 26.3.1971 and the amending Govt. Order No. 414-Ind, dated 25.8.1971 were orders of exemption referable to Section 5 of the General Sales Tax Act, 1962. The Supreme Court in this connection observed and held as under: "9. The Government orders were made implementing the Cabinet decision No. 101 of the same date. There is no ambiguity about the class of persons or dealers to whom the Government orders apply, no ambiguity about the class or description of goods and the transactions of sale which are exempt from tax. It has been duly authenticated in terms of Section 45 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. There is no ambiguity about the class of persons or dealers to whom the Government orders apply, no ambiguity about the class or description of goods and the transactions of sale which are exempt from tax. It has been duly authenticated in terms of Section 45 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. It is well settled that if power to do an act or pass an order can be traced to an enabling statutory provision, then even if that provision is not specifically referred to, the act or order shall be deemed to have been done or made under the enabling provision. Thus the Government orders satisfy all the requirements of the provisions of Section 5 of local Act. The section also does not talk of any notification: it only talks of a Government order exempting in whole or in part from payment of tax. This is very insignificant, if contrasted with Section 4(1) and 4(5) of the local Act relating to the fixation of the taxable point refers to a notification by the Government. The Act itself thus makes a distinction requiring a notification to be made for certain purposes and the making of a Government order in respect of certain other purposes. Moreover, since there is no form prescribed in this behalf if the particular order in effect is an exemption order, whether it takes the form of an order or notification makes no difference. But we may note from the various orders produced before us that normally in the case of grant of tax exemptions as an incentive to industry the exemption orders have generally taken the form of Government order rather than a notification. But in the case of other exemptions though they are also under Section 5 of the local Act they have taken the form of notification. Thus the pattern followed in Jammu & Kashmir seems to be that in respect of exemptions from payment of taxes following Cabinet decision on policy matters and incentive they have taken the form of Government order. It is necessary to refer this aspect because in later modifications while superseding the earlier order or notifications, the Government have followed the specific pattern and have used the word 'orders', in cases of grant of incentive and the word 'notifications' in the other cases. 10. It is necessary to refer this aspect because in later modifications while superseding the earlier order or notifications, the Government have followed the specific pattern and have used the word 'orders', in cases of grant of incentive and the word 'notifications' in the other cases. 10. It may also be pointed out that the Government orders 159 and 414 were also understood and treated as such exemption orders as seen from the publicity given them by the Government while inviting entrepreneurs to establish industries in Jammu & Kashmir and certain other communications to the parties. The booklet published by the Government in December, 1975 under the heading "Incentives to Development of Industries in Jammu & Kashmir" contained incentives available for small scale industries as also large and medium scale industries. The above said two Government Orders were reproduced in this booklet as the orders relating to incentives available to large and medium scale industries. Another brochure issued in March, 1978 under the heading. 'The State Marches Towards Industrial Development' after noting the efforts made by the Government to invite industrial enterprises from outside the State to locate the industries in Jammu & Kashmir and the response by the industrialist, listed the package of incentives under the heading 'Incentives Available to help you establish your beautiful industrial ventures in the J&K State'. Item 5 of this list related to 'exemption from certain taxes'. This was followed by the Finance Minister's Budget Speech for the year 1978-79 in which the Finance Minister stated: 'We have to continue a consistent policy of support and protection to industry and attract as many new units as we can, both in order to increase the employment opportunity and to achieve better economic growth. It is as such proposed to continue the grant of exemption from payment of sales tax on the goods manufactured by new units for a period of ten years from the date the unit goes into production.' 11. Subsequent to this speech of the Finance Minister another Brochure was published by the Government on the 7th September, 1978 which referred to the sustained efforts made by the Government to involve successful and experienced entrepreneurs from all over the country in setting up the industries in J&K and incentives available to the industries. Subsequent to this speech of the Finance Minister another Brochure was published by the Government on the 7th September, 1978 which referred to the sustained efforts made by the Government to involve successful and experienced entrepreneurs from all over the country in setting up the industries in J&K and incentives available to the industries. In page 14 of this Brochure 'Exemption from Sales Tax and toll tax for 10 years and exemption from CST' is listed as one of the incentives available in the State. Obviously these announcements, references and statements relating to exemption from sales tax, refer to G.O. 159-Ind, dated 26.3.1971 and G.O. 414-Ind, dated 25.8.1971. No other Government order or notification relating to exemption from payment of sales tax by large and medium industries were bought to our notice as relating to these references in the Brochures and speeches. 12. Thus on a plain reading there could be no doubt that the two Government orders are referable to the power of the Government under Section 5 of the General Sales Tax Act and are exemption orders falling within the scope of that provision." (Underlining supplied) Again, paragraph 19 of the judgment was concluded, holding as under: "...Thus there could be no doubt the Govt. Order No. 159-Ind, dated March 26, 1971 and the amending Govt. Order No. 414, dated August 25, 1971 are orders of exemption from payment of sales tax issued under Section 5 of the General Sales Tax Act". 37. On the question of promissory estoppel against the State and the effect of Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.02.1983, the Supreme Court, in paragraphs 41 and 42 of the judgment, observed and held as under: "41....It may be seen that paragraph I of this order refers to 'supersession of all previous orders' and then speaks of package of incentives and then states as applicable to existing large and medium scale industries also. If SRO 80/82, had superseded G.O. 159 and 414 does it mean that this Government order has superseded SRO 80/82 and if that is so what are incentives available after SRO 80/82, to the existing industries? This Government order is thus consistent with the pattern followed and deals only with incentives to industries. If SRO 80/82, had superseded G.O. 159 and 414 does it mean that this Government order has superseded SRO 80/82 and if that is so what are incentives available after SRO 80/82, to the existing industries? This Government order is thus consistent with the pattern followed and deals only with incentives to industries. In the second paragraph an option has been given to the industry which has not utilised the full benefit of the earlier exemption either to continue to enjoy the earlier exemption given by way of incentive or to opt for the scheme of incentive under the new Government order. Thus all, these provisions are consistent with the case of the appellants that neither SRO 80/82, superseded G.O. 159 and 414 nor Govt. Order 54, dated 26.2.1983 took their right to continue to enjoy the exemption benefit for the total period of five years as provided in the said Government orders. 42. The learned counsel for the appellants also contended that they are entitled to enjoy the benefit for the full period of five years both on law as also on the ground of estoppel. We have already noticed that in Bakhul Oil case (supra) [Bakul Oil Industries v. State of Gujarat, (1987) 1 SCC 31 : (1987) 1 SCR 185 : 1987 SCC (Tax) 74] this Court held that in the case of a grant of exemption without specifying any period for which the exemption is available the Government could withdraw the same at any time. Though in that case on facts no further question can arise since it was held that the dealer was not entitled to the benefit of the subsequent notification giving the exemption for a period of five years on the ground that the notification was prospective in operation and therefore not applicable to the dealer in that case, this Court made certain further observations to the effect that even in the case of exemption for a particular period it could be withdrawn at any time subject of course to the plea of estoppel. In Pournami Oil Mills case [Pournami Oil Mills v. State of Kerala, 1986 Supp SCC 728 : 1987 SCC (Tax) 134] also the learned Judges appear to have given the benefit of exemptions for the full period even after the withdrawal on the basis that the industry was set up in pursuance of some representation made by the Government amounting to estoppel. In the present appeals also there are lot of materials to show that the Government made representations to industry that they would give tax exemptions and other incentives and invited entrepreneurs to establish their industries in J&K. Relying on those representations each of these appellants have set up their industries. It is not necessary to set out these factual details in the judgment. Suffice it to say that we have carefully considered all the materials and are of the view that the appellants acting on the representations had set up their industries. Therefore they are entitled to claim the benefit of the exemption for the entire period of five years calculated as per the terms of the Government orders, even if it were to be held that SRO 80/82, superseded the earlier exemption orders." (Underlining supplied) It is thus seen that the Supreme Court in M/s. Pine Chemicals Ltd. v. Assessing Authority (supra) held that the Govt. Order 159-Ind, dated 26.03.1971 and the amending Govt. Order 414-Ind, dated 25.08.1971 were orders of exemption from payment of sales tax issued under Section 5 of the General Sales Tax Act. It was further held that the appellants, acting on the representations of the State Government, had set up their industries and were, therefore, entitled to claim the benefit of exemption for five years. 38. It may be observed here that though in the aforesaid cases before the Supreme Court the point in issue related to exemption/refund of sales tax on finished products and here, in the case at hand, the issue concerns the State sales tax paid on raw material, yet, since both, the finished products as well as raw material, were mentioned in one and the same Clause of the 1971 government orders, the law laid down by the Supreme Court would equally be applicable to the instant case concerning the State sales tax paid on raw material. Thus the matter as regards the entitlement of the Resin based industrial units, established in the State of J&K pursuant to and after the 1971 government orders, as were existing on the date of issue of Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.02.1983, to refund of State sales tax on the raw material stands concluded by the Supreme Court judgment in M/s. Pine Chemicals Ltd. v. Assessing Authority (Supra). The petitioner-company, being similarly placed as the appellants in the aforesaid cases before the Supreme Court, cannot be treated differently. 39. In view of what has been discussed and held hereinabove, the Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.2.1983, Notification SRO 86, dated 12.3.1984 and the Govt. Order No. 81-Ind of 1984, dated 12.3.1984 would not impact the rights of the petitioner-company, if any, accruing under Govt. Order No. 159-Ind, dated 26.3.1971 read with Govt. Order No. 414-Ind, dated 25.8.1971 vis-à-vis their industrial units as were existing on the date of issue of Government order dated 26.2.1983. Consequently, the prayer for issuance of Certiorari to that extent made by the petitioner-company is unnecessary. 40. The respondents have also raised the plea that the instant writ petition is hit by the principle of res judicata/constructive res judicata. It is submitted that in its earlier writ petition, OWP No. 277/1984, the petitioner-company had made identical claims and prayers as in the present writ petition, OWP No. 469/2002, inasmuch as the very same SROs and Government orders were challenged or pressed into service by the petitioner-company as in the present writ petition. Since that writ petition was disposed of in terms of order dated 30.06.1998, the petitioner-company is estopped from filing the present writ petition for the same reliefs, on the very same facts. 41. We have considered this submission. It is true that the petitioner-company had substantially claimed some of the identical prayers in the earlier writ petition, OWP No. 277/1984, but the order dated 30.06.1998 passed therein reveals that the Court did not return any finding on the legality or otherwise of SROs and Government orders challenged therein. It may be mentioned here that copy of that writ petition has not been placed on record of this writ petition. It may be mentioned here that copy of that writ petition has not been placed on record of this writ petition. However, copies of the interim orders dated 20.4.1984 and 25.4.1984 passed by the Court in that petition have been annexed with one of the present two writ petitions, namely, OWP No. 469/2002, as Annexures ZC and ZD at pages 217 to 221. These orders contain the reproduction of the preamble-cum-prayers made by the petitioner-company both in the writ petition (OWP No. 277/1984) as well as in the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP). The prayer clause of the writ petition, as contained therein, is quoted hereunder: "A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir for the issue of an appropriate writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari quashing: (i) Govt. Notification SRO 86, dated 12th March, 1984 whereby Govt. Notification SRO 368, dated 6.9.1982 has been rescinded; (ii) Govt. Order No. 81-Ind of 1984, dated 12.3.1984 whereby Govt. Order No. 444-11PAC/81, dated 22.10.1981 has been rescinded; (iii) Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.2.83 whereby Sales Tax incentives are purported to have been withdrawn as regards Resin based industries; (iv) Demand Notices bearing No. 1445-46, dated 23.3.84 and No. 3916-17, dated 24.3.1984 issued by Respondent No. 4 demanding payment of the price of Resin, and the surcharge allegedly payable for the years 1979-80 to 1981-82. AND a further writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to adjust the amount of sales-tax already paid and to be paid by the petitioners for the period ending September 1984 towards the price of the Resin supplied to the petitioners. AND with such other further additional or alternate relief as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case." In first of the present two writ petitions, i.e., in OWP No. 469/2002, the prayer made is as quoted hereunder: "For the reasons mentioned hereinabove and those to be mentioned at the time of hearing, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: (i) Issue a writ (of) certiorari quashing Govt. Notification No. SRO 86 & G.O. No. 81-Ind of 1984, both dated 12.02.1984 be quashed G.O. No. 54-Ind of 1983, dt. Notification No. SRO 86 & G.O. No. 81-Ind of 1984, both dated 12.02.1984 be quashed G.O. No. 54-Ind of 1983, dt. 26.2.1983 (sic); (ii) By the Government by which the refund of sales tax already paid by the petitioner on raw material utilised by Unit Nos. 4 and 5 had been declined, as null and void, illegal and inoperative and non-est under law and consequently issue a writ of certiorari quashing any such decision of the Government. (iii) Further, issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 5,58,38,271/-. (a) Representing the amount equivalent to the sales tax paid by the petitioner in respect of Unit No. 1, 2 and 3 on the raw materials purchased for the period of five years calculated from the date of commencement of production of each of these Units i.e., September 1979, March, 1982 and June 1983 respectively. (b) Representing the amount equivalent to the sales tax paid by the petitioner in respect of Units 4 and 5 for a period of five years from the date of commencement of production of each of these units i.e. 5.3.1988 and 26.6.1993 respectively strictly in accordance with the mandate of Govt. Order 159 and 414 of 1971. (iv) Strike down and declare sub-para (1) of para X/XIII of the Annexure to G.O. 54-Ind/83, dated 26.02.83 to the extent it provides that GST will be leviable on raw-material purchased by a unit brought on the negative list and further declare that the words marked in italics hereunder: 'Except on items brought on a negative list' are ultra vires of the notification itself, discriminatory, unreasonable and non-est in law. (v) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to pay cumulative interest calculated @ 36% per annum from the date the aforementioned amount became due and payable to the petitioner. (vi) Cost of litigation. This Hon'ble Court may also be pleased to allow such cost as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case; and (vii) Any other additional or alternative relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case." The earlier writ petition, OWP No. 277/1984, was disposed of by the Court by the following order passed on 30.6.1998: "Mr. T.S. Thakur Advocate General. T.S. Thakur Advocate General. Petitioner is claiming exemption in terms of notification issued in the year 1971 and some other notifications. This aspect of the matter has been considered in detail in Writ Petition No. 271-A of 1984, Pine Chemical Limited decided on 30.6.1998. The conclusions arrived at in the above writ petition are as under: (v) that the petitioner would be entitled to all those benefits which were granted by the Supreme Court of India in the case reported as Pine Chemical v. Assessing Authority, 85 (1992) SCT 432; (vi) benefits would be available to those industries which was set up after the notification issued in the year 1971; (vii) benefits of notification issued in the year 1982 would not be available for two reasons. These are: (c) this was not allowed by Supreme Court of India in Pine Chemical case (supra); (d) any industry set up before issuance of this notification cannot contend that concept of promissory estoppel should be extended to it. (viii) benefits would be available only to those industries which were established for the first time. Where a unit was expanded then that would not be entitled to the benefit. Respondent-authorities would accordingly examine the entire matter. If any exemption has become available to the petitioner company then that would be determined and benefits thereof would be passed on to the concerned petitioner. Petition stands disposed of in the same term." It is thus seen that the issues involved in the aforesaid writ petition were not expressly considered and decided. In fact, the order, insofar as it says that the respondent-authorities would examine the entire matter and if any exemption has become available to the petitioner-company then that would be determined and benefits thereof would be passed on to the concerned petitioner, makes it ex facie clear that claim of the petitioner was left to be considered and determined by the respondents. It cannot, therefore, be said that the issues involved in the writ petition were expressly considered and decided or that the decision obtained finality so as to operate as res judicata in the present writ petition. Since the whole matter was left to be considered and decided by the respondents, the question of constructive res judicata against the petitioner-company would also not arise. Reference in this connection may be made to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ferro Alloys Corpn. Since the whole matter was left to be considered and decided by the respondents, the question of constructive res judicata against the petitioner-company would also not arise. Reference in this connection may be made to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ferro Alloys Corpn. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1999) 4 SCC 149 . On the question of res judicata, it was observed therein that "it has to be kept in view that before any issue is said to be heard and finally decided, the court considering it has to be shown to have expressly considered such an issue and to have decided it one way or the other and such decision should have obtained finality in the hierarchy of proceedings. Then only such an issue can be said to be heard and finally decided between the parties". 42. As mentioned earlier, pursuant to the interim direction dated 28.12.2002 passed by the Court in first of the present two writ petitions, OWP No. 469/2002, the respondents issued Govt. Order No. 43-Ind of 2005, dated 24.02.2006 which is impugned in writ petition, OWP No. 640/2006, by the petitioners. The order is extracted below: "Government of Jammu & Kashmir Industries & Commerce Department Subject: Refund of General sales tax deposited by M/s. Dujodwala Resins & Terpenes Ltd., as per Hon'ble High Court interim direction in the writ petition No. 469/2002. Govt. Order No. 43-Ind of 2006, dated 24.02.2006 Whereas in the year 1971 the Government issued a package of incentives for medium and large scale industrial units vide Govt. Order No. 159-Ind of 1971, dated 26.03.1971 which, inter alia, provided for grant of exemption from payment of State sales tax on purchase of raw material and sale of finished products for a period of 5 years from the date a unit goes into production; and Whereas Government vide its Order No. 414-Ind of 1971, partially modified the Govt. Order No. 159-Ind of 1971, to the extent that the State sales tax paid by medium & large scale units on the procurement of raw material for an initial period of 5 years from the date of production would be refunded to them. Order No. 159-Ind of 1971, to the extent that the State sales tax paid by medium & large scale units on the procurement of raw material for an initial period of 5 years from the date of production would be refunded to them. However, the State sales tax on the finished products remained exempted for a period of 5 years from the date of production; and Whereas the Government issued new industrial policy vide Government order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.02.1983 in supersession of all earlier orders which, inter alia, placed resin in the negative list for exemption from sales tax; and Whereas the Government vide SRO 86 of 1984, dated 12.03.1984 rescinded the SRO 236, dated 9.6.1982 and SRO 368, dated 6.9.1982 which provided for exemption from payment of sales tax to SSI and medium and large scale units respectively, as if these were never issued; and Whereas aggrieved by the denial of exemption/refund from payment of sales tax on procurement of resin as raw material, M/s. Dujodwala Resin & Terpenes Limited filed a writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court bearing No. OWP 277/1984. Some other industrial units dealing with the manufacture of resin derivatives also filed writ petitions; and Whereas one of the writ petitions, namely, M/S Pine Chemicals Ltd. v. Assessing Authority & Ors. came to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 1992 whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered that the Govt. Order No. 159-Ind of 1971, dated 26.03.1971 and the Govt. came to be decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 1992 whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered that the Govt. Order No. 159-Ind of 1971, dated 26.03.1971 and the Govt. Order No. 414-Ind of 1971, dated 25.08.1971 are referable to the powers of the Government under Section 5 of the J&K General Sales Tax Act and that exemption covers the entire series of sales of the goods comprehended within it and the exemption was available only for a period of 5 years from the date of commissioning of the industries and not for 10 years; and Whereas the case of M/s. Dujodwala Resins & Terpenes Ltd. in the OWP 277/1984, also came to be decided on 30.06.1998 by the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and the following directions were passed: Whereas M/s. Dujodwala Resin & Terpenes Ltd. had also moved a CMP in the said writ petition and prayed as under: Whereas the Hon'ble High Court had issued interim orders in this behalf on 20.04.1998 which was confirmed on 25.04.1998 and remained in operation till 30.06.1998 i.e. date of decision; and Whereas in pursuance of the said judgment of the Hon'ble High Court dated 30.06.1998 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Pine Chemicals case a Unit holder is entitled to the benefit of exemption for a total period of five years only; and Whereas the exemption/benefit enjoyed by M/S Dujodwala Resin & Terpenes Ltd. beyond the maximum period of five years shall be quantified by the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes who shall be assisted by the Industries/Forest Department for taking appropriate steps/course of action as warranted under law; and Whereas in pursuance of the aforesaid judgment M/s. Dujodwala Resin & Terpenes Ltd. preferred their claims vide their Registered AD Letter No. DRT/J/C/86, dated 1st March, 1999 as per following details: Claim for the original unit which started production on 19.09.1979: Year GST deposited (Rs. In Lakhs) 1979-80 10.44 1980-81 26.00 1981-82 29.25 1982-83 14.67 1983-84 14.89 01.04.1984 to 15.09.1984 13.38 Total 108.63 Adjusted against payment of Forest Department 100.27 Amount due for refund: 8.36 Whereas claim allegedly for other units were also submitted by the unit holder but the same pertain to the period during which exemption/refund was not available apart from being expansion of the existing unit only; and Whereas the claim of refund to M/s. Dujodwala Resins & Terpenes Ltd. were examined on the basis of record/documents and it was decided that pursuant to the direction/judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case entitled Pine Chemicals v. Assessing Authority & Ors., a unit is entitled to exemption/refund of sales tax for a maximum period of 5 years from the date of its commissioning provided it has been established/set up prior to 26.02.1983; and Whereas M/s. Dujodwala Resin & Terpenes Ltd. filed another writ petition bearing No. OWP No. 469/02, wherein the Hon'ble High Court took cognizance of the admission of the Government in the objections filed by the Government in OWP No. 469/2002, to refund GST to the units which have come into production on or before 26.02.1983 and directed the Government to consider the claims of the unit holder in light of this admission; and Whereas M/s. Dujodwala Resin & Terpenes Ltd. undertook first expansion of its unit which commenced production on 26.02.1982 and in light of judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the OWP No. 277/1984, is not eligible for the refund as it is not a new unit but merely expansion of its existing unit; and Whereas all subsequent expansions have been affected after resin was placed in the negative list vide Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.02.1983, and in light found eligible for refund of Rs. 8.36 lakhs only but without prejudice to the rights of the Government to take appropriate steps for recovering the sums as may be found outstanding against the firm on the basis of exemption/benefits, if any, enjoyed/availed by it beyond the permissible period of five years; Now, therefore, sanction is hereby accorded to refund of General Sales Tax deposited by the unit holder for an amount of Rs. 8.36 lakhs. This expenditure will be debitable to the Account Head Capital Outlay V&SS 14851. By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir." (Underlining supplied) 43. 8.36 lakhs. This expenditure will be debitable to the Account Head Capital Outlay V&SS 14851. By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir." (Underlining supplied) 43. From the aforesaid order, it becomes axiomatic that the respondents controvert the claim of the petitioner-company on two counts: first that the subsequent four industrial units set up by the petitioner-company are only by way of expansion of its first and the initial industrial unit, the first expansion having commenced production on 26.02.1982, and, therefore, in terms of the judgment of the High Court in OWP No. 277/1984, the petitioner-company is not eligible for refund of State sales tax in respect of these units; second, that such expansions have been affected after resin was placed in the negative list vide Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.02.1983; 44. The respondents have not brought anything on record to show that the Government has prescribed any norms under which it could determine and classify whether an industrial unit would fall within the category of a new unit or an expansion of the existing unit. What yard stick has been applied to come to the conclusion that the four industrial units established by the petitioner-company were only by way of expansion of the initial unit is not disclosed. It is also not the case of the respondents that the Government has laid down any norms for such classification of industrial units, and that the nature of units of the petitioner-company was considered on the basis of any such prescribed norms. Such a determination cannot be made on the basis whims and caprice by any functionary of the State. The statements made in the impugned Govt. Order No. 43-Ind of 2006, dated 24.02.2006 in this regard are not supported by any justification, reason or material, muchless a plausible or cogent one. 45. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner-company that every new industrial unit is required to be registered with the Industries Department of the State, which is not the case when there is only an expansion of the existing industries unit. It is submitted that the five units established by the petitioner-company have duly been separately registered with the concerned authority, without any demur from such authority, and each unit is a distinct and different industry dealing with the manufacturing activity of different kind of product. It is submitted that the five units established by the petitioner-company have duly been separately registered with the concerned authority, without any demur from such authority, and each unit is a distinct and different industry dealing with the manufacturing activity of different kind of product. These statements are not contradicted by the respondents. 46. Apart from above, the petitioner-company has placed on record of the writ petition, OWP No. 469/2002, as Annexure ZG from pages 226 to 236, contemporaneous record in the shape of communication No. DI&C/PS/99/130, dated 25.8.1999, addressed by none other than the Director of Industries and Commerce, Srinagar, to the Principal Secretary & Secretary to Government, Industries and Commerce Department, Srinagar. In its second paragraph at page 231, it records and reads as under: "In the writ petition (WP No. 272 of 84) M/s. Dujodwala Resins and Terpenes Ltd. have pleaded that sales tax paid on the Oleo resin be refunded to them in terms of the Govt. Order No. 414-Ind of 1971, read with the Govt. Order No. 159-Ind of 1971. They have claimed refund right from the date they went into production till 1996-97 in respect of each of the five units established by them. It may be mentioned here that each of the five units established by the petitioner-company is separately registered with Director General, Technical and Disposals, for different lines of product and with different dates of production. It has already been accepted by the State High Court that these five units have different dates of production and have been treated as individual units. So far as exemption on account of toll tax is concerned they have already got exemption individually for a period specified in the relevant notifications with effect from the date of production of each unit." (Underlining supplied) It is thus clearly shown and admitted by the concerned and competent authority, i.e., the Director, Industries and Commerce, that the five units established by the petitioner-company are separate, individual and distinct industrial units for distinct lines of products, not expansion of a single initial industrial unit. 47. Now, comes the crucial question for determination, and that is whether the industrial units established after issuance of Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.02.1983 would be entitled to claim such refund? 47. Now, comes the crucial question for determination, and that is whether the industrial units established after issuance of Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.02.1983 would be entitled to claim such refund? Then, given the facts of the present case, an ancillary question would need an answer, and the question is: Which date would be relevant so as to make an industrial unit entitled to claim the refund of State sales tax paid on raw material/Resin-the date of registration of the unit, the date on which the Resin for the unit is purchased or strictly the date of production? Let us first take up the ancillary question mentioned above for determination. 48. Clause (2) of Govt. Order No. 159-Ind of 1971, dated 26.3.1971 granted exemption from State sales tax on raw materials and finished products for a period of five years from the date the unit would go into production. Govt. Order No. 414-Ind of 1971, dated 28.8.1971 partially modified the aforesaid Government order dated 26.3.1971 to say that the State sales tax paid by large and medium scale industries on the raw materials procured by them for the initial 5 years of the production would be refunded to such industries. Similarly such industries will be granted exemption from the payment of any State sales tax on their finished products for a period of five years from the date the unit goes into production. It is seen that the two Government orders have made the production date as the determinative factor in this regard. So far as the finished goods are concerned, the determinative factor for entitlement to exemption on sales tax on the finished goods relatable to the date of production may be reasonable, but relating entitlement to claim refund of such tax on purchase of raw material to the date of production sounds somewhat unreasonable, because as on the date of production the investment to establish the industry would have been made, the registration of the industry would have been done, the raw material would have been purchased and the State sales tax would have been paid thereon. Going back to the efforts and endeavours made by the State Government, the whole object of issuing the two 1971 Government orders and behind the exercise of whatever kind undertaken by the State Government of making the representation, assurance and promise has been to attract and tempt the entrepreneurs to invest their wealth in the establishment of Industry in the State. Once an entrepreneur has understood the promise made by the State Government; and acted thereon, incurring huge sums of money on establishment of an industry in the State during the currency of Government orders making such promise, it would be harsh to deny such entrepreneur what was promised to him in return, if, in the meantime, after the establishment of the industry, the scheme of things is changed. We think that in such a situation, the words "of the production" used in Govt. Order No. 414-Ind of 1971, dated 25.8.1971 in relation to refund of State sales tax on procurement of raw materials should relate, if not earlier, at least to the date when the first lot of the raw material is purchased by it, not the date of production. This is also because raw material would have to be procured and the State sales tax thereon would have to be paid much before the actual date the production starts. If the date of production is strictly taken to be the determinative factor for the purpose, then the sales tax paid on the raw material prior to such date would not be refundable. That certainly does not seem to be the import of the Government policy contained in the two Government orders of 1971. In our considered view, to make an industrial unit entitled to claim the refund of State sales tax paid on raw material/Resin, the relevant date should, therefore, be the date on which the first lot of raw material is purchased by such industry. 49. Now, let us come to the principal question-whether the industrial units established after issuance of Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.02.1983 would be entitled to claim such refund? It is not that the Government was under an obligation to continue with the incentives provided under the 1971 orders till eternity. The Government was well within its powers to revoke, alter or withdraw the incentives and/or to revise the same, subject, of course, only to one limitation viz. It is not that the Government was under an obligation to continue with the incentives provided under the 1971 orders till eternity. The Government was well within its powers to revoke, alter or withdraw the incentives and/or to revise the same, subject, of course, only to one limitation viz. the power could not be exercised in violation of the rule of promissory estoppel. The question of promissory estoppel would arise only if an industry was established during the currency of the incentive so promised. One could be said to have relied on a representation, assurance or promise only when such representation, assurance or promise is in vogue. Once the Government orders promising such incentives are revoked, withdrawn or altered, by the Government, any industry established thereafter would not be governed by such incentives, nor can such industry claim the benefit under such a revoked Government order. The entrepreneurs can also not demand that the Government should continue a scheme at their choice. Of course, an industry that is established during the currency of the incentive would continue to be entitled to avail the benefit subject to the promise thereunder. The issue, in fact, stands settled by the Supreme Court in M/s. Pine Chemicals Ltd. v. Assessing Authority (supra). The relevant paragraph 15 of the judgment is quoted hereunder: "15. In Bakul Oil Industries & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr., [1987] 1 SCR 185, the effect of two exemption notifications made in exercise of the Government's power under Section 49(2) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1960 was considered. Under the first notification dated 29.4.1970 certain exemption from payment of sales tax or purchase tax was given in respect of certain specified classes of sales and purchases described in the Schedule to that notification without any specification of period. The second notification dated 11.11.1970 amended the first notification by adding a new entry in the Schedule exempting a manufacturer who established a new industry from the whole of purchase tax and sale tax for a period of five years from the date of commissioning of the industry. This second notification stated that for the benefit of claiming the exemption the industry shall have been commissioned at any time during the period from 1st April, 1970 to 31st March, 1975. This second notification stated that for the benefit of claiming the exemption the industry shall have been commissioned at any time during the period from 1st April, 1970 to 31st March, 1975. The assessee in that case had commissioned his plant on the 17th May, 1970 and when the Industries Commissioners refused to give him the eligibility certificate for claiming exemption he filed a writ petition under Article 226 before the Gujarat High Court. During the pendency of the writ petition the State Government issued another notification dated 17th July, 1971 amending the definition of 'new industry' and excluding among others decorticating, expelling, crushing, roasting, parching, frying of oil, seeds and colouring, decolouring and scenting of oil, from the purview of the exemption notification. This Court held that under the first notification dated 9.4.1990 the exemption granted was general and did not stipulate as to how long the exemption would remain in operation and that would mean that the exemption granted under the notification was to have operative force till such time that exemption was allowed to remain before being withdrawn by a subsequent notification. Though the second notification dated 11.11.1970 gave exemption for a period of five years from the date of commissioning of the industry this Court was of the view that, that exemption cannot be invoked by the assessee in that case for claiming the benefit of tax exemption for five years because the second notification was prospective in operation and would apply only to those new industries which were commissioned subsequent to the issue of that notification and since the assessee in that case commissioned the Mill on 17.5.1970 before the second notification he was not eligible for the benefit of second notification. However, the learned counsel for the respondents relied on the observation in the first paragraph at page 192 of the Bakul Oil Industries case (supra) wherein the learned Judges have held that the State Government was under no obligation in any manner known to law to grant exemption and that it was fully within its powers to revoke the exemption by means of a subsequent notification. These observations will have to be understood in the light of the earlier statement that the second notification dated 11.11.1970 was prospective; that is to say if the industry had been commissioned subsequent to 11.11.1970 the assessee would have been entitled to the exemption for the full period of five years. These observations are apposite only to the notification dated 9.4.1970 which was the one which the assessee was entitled to. In correctly understanding the ratio of this judgment we have to keep in mind that the date of commissioning of the industry was the relevant factor to the entitlement of the relief. Therefore this is an authority only for the proposition that if the exemption notification did not stipulate as to how long the exemption would remain in operation it would be open to the Government to withdraw the same at any time by a subsequent notification. But the learned Judges did not stop with that but make a further observation that if the exemption notification gave exemption from payment of tax for a particular period and an industry was commissioned after the date of the exemption order but before the exemption was withdrawn, the said industry would be entitled to the benefit of exemption for the period specified in the exemption order though the exemption was withdrawn before the expiry of that period if the industry could rely on any estoppel. This is also clear as the learned Judges themselves have observed that the industry commissioned subsequent to the notification could also plead estoppel and observed: 'We must, however, observe that the power of revocation or withdrawal would be subject to one limitation viz. the power cannot be exercised in violation of the rule of Promissory Estoppel. In other words, the Government can withdraw an exemption granted by it earlier if such withdrawal could be done without offending the rule of Promissory Estoppel and depriving an industry entitled to claim exemption from payment of tax under the said rule. the power cannot be exercised in violation of the rule of Promissory Estoppel. In other words, the Government can withdraw an exemption granted by it earlier if such withdrawal could be done without offending the rule of Promissory Estoppel and depriving an industry entitled to claim exemption from payment of tax under the said rule. If the Government grants exemption to a new industry and if on the basis of the representation made by the Government an industry is established in order to avail the benefit of exemption, it may then follow that the new industry can legitimately raise a grievance that the exemption could not be withdrawn except by means of legislation having regard to the fact that Promissory Estoppel cannot be claimed against a statute.'" The Government's power of revocation, alteration or withdrawal of an incentive, granted by it earlier, is thus recognised by law. Of course, such revocation, alteration or withdrawal would always be subject to the limitation that the power cannot be exercised in violation of the rule of Promissory Estoppel. The Government in terms of sub-clause (i) Clause XII/XIII of Annexure to Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, provided that GST shall be charged on any raw material purchased by any industrial unit, except on items brought on a negative list. Resin is said to be one of the items brought on the negative list. As mentioned above, the relevant order has not been placed on record. However, it is not denied by the petitioner-company. This order is prospective in nature and would not be applicable to the industrial units which had become entitled to the availment of the earlier package of incentives. But any industrial units established after issuance of the said Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.02.1983 and promulgation of the new package of incentives would not be entitled to claim the benefits as were available under the two Government orders issued in the year 1971, because they would stand superseded and, therefore, non-existent. 50. Back to the case at hand, the respondents in terms of impugned Govt. Order No. 43-Ind of 2006, dated 24.02.2006 have held the petitioner-company entitled to refund of State sales tax on purchase of raw material/Resin vis-à-vis its first unit only. It is stated that rest of the four units have been established when Resin had been brought on negative list. Order No. 43-Ind of 2006, dated 24.02.2006 have held the petitioner-company entitled to refund of State sales tax on purchase of raw material/Resin vis-à-vis its first unit only. It is stated that rest of the four units have been established when Resin had been brought on negative list. This assertion is partly contrary to records. The Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, wherein Resin is stated to have been brought on negative list was issued on 26.02.1983. The actual date on which Resin was brought on negative list is not disclosed, nor any Government order or notification issued in that behalf has been placed on record. Be that as it may, the petitioner-company, as mentioned earlier, admittedly, established its second unit on 20.08.1982 and this Unit commenced its production on 26.03.1982, i.e., much before the issuance of Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983. Thus, the 2nd industrial unit was established and it commenced its commercial production during the currency of the incentives granted by the 1971 Government orders. Consequently, the assertion of the respondents that it was established after the Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.02.1983 or when Resin was brought on negative list is wholly incorrect and contrary to records. Consequently, the petitioner-company would be entitled to refund of State sales tax paid by it on the raw material/Resin purchased by it for utilization in the said 2nd unit. 51. Though the contention of the petitioner-company is that the third unit was registered on 13.01.1983 which date again falls before the date of issue of Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, but it, admittedly, started its commercial production with effect from 02.06.1983, i.e., after the date of issue of Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983. We have already expressed our view that to make an industrial unit entitled to claim the refund of State sales tax paid on raw material/Resin, the relevant date should be the date on which the first lot of raw material is purchased by such industry. It is not disclosed by the petitioner-company as to when did it start lifting raw material-Resin for its third industrial unit from the State Forest Department. Therefore, it is difficult for this Court to hold whether the petitioner-company would be entitled to claim refund of the State sales tax paid by it on the raw material for its third unit, or not. Therefore, it is difficult for this Court to hold whether the petitioner-company would be entitled to claim refund of the State sales tax paid by it on the raw material for its third unit, or not. However, this aspect of the matter can be looked into by the respondents on the basis of the records and, depending upon the factual position, would proceed in the matter in accordance with what has been held above. 52. So far as the 4th and 5th industrial units of the petitioner-company are concerned, these units have, admittedly, been established after issuance of Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.02.1983 and when the Resin had been brought on negative list. These units, therefore, cannot be said to be governed by the incentives which were granted by the 1971 Government orders. Since the Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.02.1983 did not grant any such incentive to Resin based new industrial units, the petitioner-company is not entitled to claim refund of State sales tax paid by it on the raw material/Resin purchased and utilized by it in its 4th and 5th units. 53. An argument was raised that the operation of Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.2.1983, the Notification, SRO 86, dated 12.3.1984 and Govt. Order No. 81-Ind of 1984, dated 12.3.1984, was stayed by the Court in terms of order dated 20.4.1984 which was made absolute by order dated 25.04.1984 in CMP No. 560/1984, accompanying the writ petition, OWP No. 277/1984. It is contended that the stay order remained in operation till 30.6.1998, the date the writ petition was finally disposed of and, therefore, Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.2.1983 did not become operational against the petitioner-company; as such, in law, till the writ petition was finally disposed of, the petitioner-company is to be deemed to have been governed by the terms of the 1971 Government orders. According to the petitioner-company, since the two units in question were established during the period the petitioner-company continued to be governed by the 1971 Government orders, it is entitled to the concessions/incentives granted by the said Government orders. 54. The argument seems to be quite attractive, but equally untenable. The fact remains that the Court did not ultimately quash the Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.2.1983 or the order which had brought Resin on the negative list. 54. The argument seems to be quite attractive, but equally untenable. The fact remains that the Court did not ultimately quash the Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.2.1983 or the order which had brought Resin on the negative list. As a matter of fact, as mentioned above, order bringing Resin on negative list was not brought on record, question of challenging it did not arise. The matter would have been different had these orders been quashed. If an order is quashed, the quashing relegates to the date of issue of the order, meaning thereby that the effect of quashing is such as if the order had not at all been issued and that it never existed. On the other hand, if the operation of an order is stayed, it would continue to exist. Once the lis is terminated and the order is not quashed, it will operate right from the date of its issue. It is the cardinal principle of law of temporary injunctions that interim directions passed in a lis merge in the final decision thereof. Consequently, if the order challenged and stayed during the pendency of the writ petition is not finally quashed, the result brought about by the interim order becomes non est and loses all its efficacy. If what the petitioner-company seeks to put forth was true, then there was no need for it to have challenged the same in the present writ petition, OWP No. 469/2002. The effect of stay of an order would not be the same as of quashing. "While considering the effect of an interim order staying the operation of the order under challenge, a distinction has to be made between quashing of an order and stay of operation of an order. Quashing of an order results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date of the passing of the order which has been quashed. The stay of operation of an order does not, however, lead to such a result. It only means that the order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of the passing of the stay order and it does not mean that the said order has been wiped out from existence." Reference: Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Assn., (1992) 3 SCC 1 . 55. It only means that the order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of the passing of the stay order and it does not mean that the said order has been wiped out from existence." Reference: Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Assn., (1992) 3 SCC 1 . 55. In this connection, it may also be observed that it is not the case of the petitioner-company that it had pleaded and made a specific prayer in their earlier writ petition, OWP No. 277/1984, that it was going to set up new industrial units and that the Government be directed to supply to such new Units, as and when established post Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.2.1983, raw material/Resin as per the terms of 1971 Government orders. The interim order passed by the Court related to supply of raw material/Resin only to the industrial units of the petitioner-company as had been set up and established on the date of filing of the writ petition or on the date of passing of the interim order dated 25.04.1984. 56. A point was raised that since this Court in its order dated 30.6.1998 while disposing of the earlier writ petition, OWP No. 277/1984, directed that the petitioner-company would be entitled to all those benefits which were granted by the Supreme Court in the case reported as M/s. Pine Chemicals Ltd. v. Assessing Authority, (1992) 2 SCC 683 , the petitioner-company has a right to the refund of State sales tax paid by it on the raw material utilized for all the industrial units. In this connection, it would suffice to say that the issue before the Supreme Court was not whether an industrial unit as may be set up in future, post Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.2.1983, would be entitled to claim the benefits under Govt. Order No. 159-Ind, dated March 26, 1971 read with Govt. Order No. 414-Ind, dated August 25, 1971. The case before the Supreme Court pertained to the industrial units which had been set up after the aforesaid two Government orders of 1971, were existing as on the date of issue of Government order dated 26.2.1983 and had not yet fully availed of the incentive provided under the 1971 Government orders. Order No. 414-Ind, dated August 25, 1971. The case before the Supreme Court pertained to the industrial units which had been set up after the aforesaid two Government orders of 1971, were existing as on the date of issue of Government order dated 26.2.1983 and had not yet fully availed of the incentive provided under the 1971 Government orders. In its judgment, the Supreme Court nowhere said that the industrial units as may be set up in future after the Government order dated 26.2.1983 would also be entitled to claim the benefits in question under the 1971 Government orders. 57. In light of all what has been discussed above, we hold the petitioner-company entitled, in terms of Govt. Order No. 159-Ind of 1971, dated 26.03.1971 read with Govt. Order No. 414-Ind of 1971, dated 25.08.1971, to refund of State sales tax paid by it on purchase of raw material of Resin for its 1st and 2nd industrial units each for a period of five years commencing from the dates these units respectively, after being set up, started lifting the raw material/Resin from the State Forest Department for being utilized for manufacturing activity in these two industrial units. As far as the industrial unit 3rd is concerned, the respondents would ascertain, within a month from the date a copy of this judgment is served on them, from the records with the assistance of the petitioner-company, if it had started lifting raw material/Resin before the date of issue of Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.2.1983 for utilization in the said unit. If that be so, then the petitioner-company would be entitled to refund of State sales tax paid by it on purchase of raw material of Resin for its 3rd industrial units as well for a period of five years on the same pattern. So far as 4th and 5th industrial units are concerned, the petitioner-company is held to be not entitled to claim any refund on this score. Consequently, the Govt. Order No. 43-Ind of 2006, dated 24.02.2006, to the extent indicated above, is held to be unsustainable in the eyes of law and therefore, liable to be quashed. In so far as Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.2.1983, the Notification, SRO 86, dated 12.3.1984 and Govt. Consequently, the Govt. Order No. 43-Ind of 2006, dated 24.02.2006, to the extent indicated above, is held to be unsustainable in the eyes of law and therefore, liable to be quashed. In so far as Govt. Order No. 54-Ind of 1983, dated 26.2.1983, the Notification, SRO 86, dated 12.3.1984 and Govt. Order No. 81-Ind of 1984, dated 12.3.1984, are concerned, it is held that the same do not impact the right of the petitioner-company to claim the incentive in question under the two 1971 Government orders, discussed hereinabove. 58. These two writ petitions are, accordingly, partly allowed to the extent discussed, mentioned and detailed above. Consequently, by issuance of writ of certiorari Govt. Order No. 43-Ind of 2006, dated 24.02.2006 to the extent indicated above is quashed. The respondents are directed to take fellow up action and refund the State sales tax paid by the petitioner-company on the raw materials/Resin in terms of what has been held in paragraph 58 hereinabove, within a period of four months from the date of this judgment. It is provided that in the event the respondents fail to discharge their liabilities on this score within the time allowed hereinabove, the petitioner-company would be entitled to damages in the nature of simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount as may be due to it till the same is actually paid to it. 59. The connected MPs will abide the final decision hereinabove rendered. Parties to bear their respective costs.