JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Ms. Sangita Vishen waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- "{A} This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus, or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, quashing and setting aside the communication dated 29th March 2014 conveying the decision of the High Power Committee that the capital investment made by the petitioners after 31st December 2005 are not eligible for Sales-tax incentives as the said decision is absolutely unjust, improper, unlawful, contrary to the provisions of the Scheme and in violation of the principles of promissory estoppel as well as natural justice. {B} This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to issue the writ of mandamus, or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to modify the final eligibility certificate issued on 16th February 2008 restricting the petitioners entitlement to Sales-tax exemption only upto 71.80 Crores and not taking into consideration the further investment made by the petitioners to the extent of Rs. 91.45 crores upto 31st December 2007, being the extended period of the Scheme. {C} During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain the respondents from enforcing any demand of Sales tax that may be raised against the petitioners as a result of unlawful restriction on the petitioners claim of incentive benefits. {D} This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant any other and further relief that may be deemed just and necessary in the interest of justice." 3. That, the petitioner No. 1-Company is engaged in manufacturing of high-end application tubes and pipes in stainless steel, welded as well as seamless construction for industries like refiners, petrochemicals, power, fertilizer, etc and also carbon steel welded pipes for industries - refiners power, oil and gas, water, sewage, etc. 3.1 It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that pursuant to the aforesaid Incentive Scheme, the petitioner No. 1-Company made an application for Sales Tax incentive registration under the Incentive Scheme for Economic Development of Kutch District issued under Government Resolution dated 9th November 2001. 3.1 It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that pursuant to the aforesaid Incentive Scheme, the petitioner No. 1-Company made an application for Sales Tax incentive registration under the Incentive Scheme for Economic Development of Kutch District issued under Government Resolution dated 9th November 2001. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that while making an application, it was made very clear that it wanted to establish a manufacturing unit alongwith utility infrastructural facilities, etc., worth more than Rs. 120 Crores. Accordingly, the petitioners investment was spread over into two phases viz., in the first phase, the petitioner No. 1-Company would make investment of Rs. 54.50 Crores and in the second phase, the investment would be made of Rs. 65.73 Crores. 3.2 That, pursuant to an application made, the Industries Commissioner, Gandhinagar issued a Provisional Eligibility Certificate for Sales Tax incentives on 20th October 2006 certifying that the petitioner No. 1-Company had started a new industrial unit at Bhimasar of Taluka Anjar, District-Kutch for Sales tax incentives under the above referred Scheme and that the Unit has exercised an option for Sales Tax Exemption [Remission of Tax] and that the Unit has commenced its commercial production from 30th October 2005. 3.3 That at the time of applying for Provisional Eligibility Certificate, the petitioners submitted Chartered Accountant Certificate certifying that the investment made by the petitioners in the fixed assets for the Unit of commissioning of the said project was to the extent of Rs. 73.80 Crores. That thereafter, an ad hoc Eligibility Certificate was granted to the petitioner-Company, considering the eligible capital investment of Rs. 73.80 Crores made upto 31st December 2005. 3.4 It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that in Phase II, the Company had invested a further sum of Rs. 50.36 Crores during the Calender Year 2006 as a part of planned investment; as shown in the Project Report already submitted alongwith application for registration on 18th August 2005 by the petitioner-Company vide its letter dated 24th March 2007. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that the Company made the said investment of Rs. 50.37 Crores towards the factory buildings, tube-mills, spiral plants, chamfering machines, overhead cranes, hydro-testing machines, extrusion press, etc., as a part of project and required to attend planned capacity. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that the Company made the said investment of Rs. 50.37 Crores towards the factory buildings, tube-mills, spiral plants, chamfering machines, overhead cranes, hydro-testing machines, extrusion press, etc., as a part of project and required to attend planned capacity. According to the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1-Company had, as a part of Phase II, made investment of Rs. 65.73 Crores towards balancing equipments and wind-mills to be installed upto 30th April 2007. According to the petitioners, as per the Scheme, Phase II is to be considered as a pipe-line project, and therefore, any investment made upto 31st December 2007, the petitioners shall be eligible for incentive under the Scheme on the amount invested during the extended period i.e., 31st December 2007. 3.5 It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that, however, the Industries Commissioner when issued and granted Final Eligibility Certificate dated 16th December 2008 for Rs. 71.80 Crores only and the Provisional Eligibility Certificate was accordingly amended as per the decision taken by the State Level Committee in its meeting dated 29th January 2008. That thereafter, by the impugned decision dated 29th March 2014 of the High Power Committee by which a decision has been taken that the Capital investment made by the petitioner after 31st December 2005 are not eligible for Sales-tax Incentives, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the aforesaid reliefs. 4. Heard Shri DK Puj, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Shri Kamal B Trivedi, learned Advocate General for the respondents. 5. Shri DK Puj, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that the impugned communication dated 29th March 2014 sent by the Industries Commissioner conveying decision of the High Power Committee that the capital investment made by the petitioners after 31st December 2005 are not eligible for Sales-tax Incentives is absolutely unjust, improper and against the terms and conditions of the Incentive Scheme 2001. It is vehemently submitted by learned advocate Shri Puj that even the denial of the incentive on the investment made after 31st December 2005 is also against the objectives and intend of the Incentive Scheme. It is vehemently submitted by learned advocate Shri Puj that even the denial of the incentive on the investment made after 31st December 2005 is also against the objectives and intend of the Incentive Scheme. It is submitted that the Scheme announced by the State Government was with a laudable object and intent for the betterment of Kutch district and its overall economic growth, creation of new employment opportunities, contemplating participation of established industrial undertakings and all those Units who were willing to establish new industries for the said purpose. It is further submitted by Shri Puj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that in the present case, the petitioner-Company had fulfilled all the requirements for its eligibility and accordingly, ad hoc eligibility certificate was granted to the petitioner-Company initially, considering the eligible capital investment of Rs. 73.80 Crores incurred upto 31st December 2005. It is submitted that the petitioner-Company commenced commercial production by creating assets as Phase-I, while investment in Phase II was in process as on 31st December 2005 at Kutch in the remaining assets like critical plant and machinery and balancing equipments to complete the planned plant capacities and for that purpose, the petitioner-Company had made investment of Rs. 50.36 Crores during the Calender Year 2006, as a part of planned investment as shown in the Project Report already submitted alongwith application for registration on 18th August 2005. It is submitted that the petitioner-Company had made investment of Rs. 50.36 Crores towards Factory Building, Tube Mills, Spiral Plants, Chamfering machines, Overhead cranes, Hydro-testing machines, Extrusion press, etc., were brought as a part of Project and required to attain the planned capacity. It is submitted that the petitioner-Company had, as a part of Phase-II, made investment of Rs. 65.73 Crores towards Balancing equipments and Wind Mills to be installed upto 30th April 2007. It is submitted that therefore, it can be said that the aforesaid investment made after 31st December 2005 was in pipeline, even on the date of commencement of the production which has been completely set up during the year 2007. It is submitted that for the pipeline project, the State Government has taken a decision of extending the Scheme upto 31st December 2007, and therefore, as Phase-II can be said to be a pipeline project, the petitioners are entitled to incentive on the investment made upto 31st December 2007. 6. Mr. It is submitted that for the pipeline project, the State Government has taken a decision of extending the Scheme upto 31st December 2007, and therefore, as Phase-II can be said to be a pipeline project, the petitioners are entitled to incentive on the investment made upto 31st December 2007. 6. Mr. Puj, learned advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that even otherwise the case of the petitioners will fall under the third category of Industrial Units; as mentioned in Clause 3.8 of the Scheme ie., the Industrial Units having the project cost exceeding Rs. 10 Crores. It is submitted that the aforesaid fact is not in dispute. It is submitted that therefore, considering Clause 3.8 of the Scheme, in case of Industrial Units exceeding Rs. 10 Crores, the assets acquired within a period of 18 months from the date of commencement of commercial production shall be considered eligible for the purpose of incentives. It is submitted that therefore, whatever the amount/whatever the expenditure incurred by the petitioner-Company, and whatever the investment is made and/or assets acquired within a period of 18 months from 30th October 2005; being the period of 18 months from the date of commencement of commercial production, the petitioner-Company is entitled to the benefits of Sales Tax exemption on the amount incurred by the petitioners ie., upto 30th April 2007. It is submitted that therefore, in any case and atleast with respect to the expenses incurred/investment made upto 30th April 2007, the petitioners shall be entitled to incentives on such investment made upto 30th April 2007. For the aforesaid, the learned advocate for the petitioners has heavily relied upon Clause 3.8 of the Scheme [Gujarati version]. 6.1 It is further submitted by Shri DK Puj, learned advocate for the petitioners that the third part of Clause 3.8 is with respect to the Industrial Units investing more than Rs. 10 Crores is concerned, it is in two parts ie., (i) for the period upto 31st December, 2005 or (ii) where the assets are acquired within a period of 18 months from the date of commencement of commercial production. 10 Crores is concerned, it is in two parts ie., (i) for the period upto 31st December, 2005 or (ii) where the assets are acquired within a period of 18 months from the date of commencement of commercial production. It is submitted that in the first category ie., in case of Small Industrial Units, the assets acquired upto the period of six months from the date of commencement of production, or till completion of the scheme (whichever is earlier between the two) shall be considered eligible for the purpose of incentives. It is submitted that even in the case of medium and large scale Industrial Units, the assets acquired upto the period of one year from the date of commencement of production, or till the date of completion of the scheme [whichever is earlier between the two] shall be considered eligible for the purpose of incentives. It is submitted that, however, no such words are used "whichever is earlier between the two" - in case of Industrial Units having project cost exceeding Rs. 10 crores. 6.2 It is submitted that in case of Industrial Units having project cost exceeding Rs. 10 crores, the words, "whichever is earlier between the two" are missing, and therefore, the assets acquired within the period of 18 months from the date of commencement of production or till the completion of the said scheme, shall be considered eligible for the purpose of incentives. It is submitted that therefore, on reading Clause 3.8 of the Scheme as it is, as in the present case the date of commencement of commercial production is 30th October, 2005, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to Sales-tax exemption/incentives on the total assets acquired within the period of 18 months from 30th October, 2005 ie., up to 30th April, 2007. It is submitted that therefore, as such, the petitioner-Company is entitled to Sales-tax incentives/benefits on the total expenditure incurred and paid-up to 30th April, 2007. It is further submitted by Shri Puj, learned advocate for the petitioner that the decision of the respondents not to consider any investment/expenses incurred after 31st December 2005 as eligible for incentives is just contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 13813 of 2010 [Mahashakti Coke v. State of Gujarat], and Special Civil Application No. 5638 of 2011 [Shaifali Rolls Limited & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.]. Shri Puj, learned advocate for the petitioner has heavily relied upon decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Saifali Rolls Limited & Anr. [Supra]. 6.3 It is further submitted by Shri Puj, learned advocate for the petitioners that even otherwise in case of Pipeline Project, the State Government has extended the scheme up to 31st December, 2007. It is submitted that therefore also, when in the case of Pipeline Projects, the scheme has been extended up to 31st December, 2007, the expenses incurred by the petitioner-Company at least upto 30th April, 2007; being the period of 18 months from the date of commencement of commercial production, the petitioners shall be entitled to the Sales Tax incentives, as the petitioners can be on the stronger footing than the Pipeline Project. 6.4 Shri D.K Puj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has also heavily relied upon a decision of Divisional Bench of this Court rendered in case of Mahashakti Coke v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2012) 55 VST 382 [Gujarat] in support of the prayer made in the petition to direct the respondents to consider the investment made by the petitioner-Company upto 30th April, 2007 for the purpose of incentives/Sales Tax benefits. 6.5 Making above submissions and relying upon above decisions, it is requested to allow the present petition. 7. The present petition is vehemently opposed by Shri Kamal B. Trivedi, learned Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the grant of benefit of incentives as well as Sales Tax exemption to the petitioner-Company on the Capital Investment incurred upto 30th October, 2005 is absolutely just, proper and legal and in consonance with the Scheme. It is further submitted by Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General that as such, the intention of the State by the Scheme was to grant incentives/Sales Tax exemption on the Capital Investment made and/or expenses incurred only upto 31st December, 2005. It is submitted that however, in the printing, through oversight, in the Gujarati version the word, "whichever is earlier between the two" is missing, like in the case of Small Industrial Units and Medium Industrial Units. It is submitted that therefore, the petitioners cannot be permitted to take undue advantage of the mistake in printing in Gujarati version. It is submitted that however, in the printing, through oversight, in the Gujarati version the word, "whichever is earlier between the two" is missing, like in the case of Small Industrial Units and Medium Industrial Units. It is submitted that therefore, the petitioners cannot be permitted to take undue advantage of the mistake in printing in Gujarati version. He has submitted that in the English version, which is referred to in the Additional Affidavit-in-Reply, it has been specifically mentioned that in case of Industrial Units having project cost exceeding Rs. 10 Crores, the assets acquired within the period of 18 months from the date of commencement of production or till the completion of the said Scheme [whichever is earlier than the two], shall be considered eligible for the purpose of incentives. It is submitted that therefore, the understanding on the part of the authority ie., the State Government was to consider investments/assets acquired by the industrial undertaking within a period of 18 months from the date of commencement of production, or till the completion of the said Scheme ie., 31st December, 2005 [whichever is earlier between the two]. 7.1 It is submitted by Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General that the Incentive Scheme cannot be treated like a Statute or a plenary legislation in the matter of interpretation of the provisions contained in the said resolution. It is submitted that the interpretation of the provisions contained by the said resolution has to be purposive in nature and all the provisions contained therein have to be read together in harmonious fashion. It is submitted that while doing so, the understanding on the part of the author, which is the State Government in the present case, as regard its scope and purview cannot be lost sight of. 7.2 It is submitted that the incentive Scheme in question was extended to all the Industrial Units regardless of any distinction like Small, Medium, Large Industrial Units vis-à-vis the project cost involved therein. That, the categories contained ie., capital expenditure incurred and paid during the period of operation of the incentive Scheme would be taken into account. It is submitted that thereafter, in the initial draft of the resolution, Clause 3.8 thereof carried only Small scale, Medium scale and Large scale units without there being any mention as regards having project cost exceeding Rs. 10 Crores. It is submitted that thereafter, in the initial draft of the resolution, Clause 3.8 thereof carried only Small scale, Medium scale and Large scale units without there being any mention as regards having project cost exceeding Rs. 10 Crores. It is submitted that it is only after further deliberations that provision of units having project cost exceeding Rs. 10 Crores have been incorporated in the said Clause 3.8. It is submitted that though, the said provision was made by adding the words exceeding Rs. 10 Crores, unfortunately, the condition "whichever is earlier between the two" was inadvertently omitted to be mentioned. It is submitted that if one peruses the file, the intention of the State Government was that the Capital Investment incurred and paid during the year from the date of commencement of commercial production or till the currency of the Scheme, "whichever is earlier", was to be taken into account for exceeding the benefit of incentive Scheme. It is submitted that thus, the intention on behalf of the State in Clause 3.8 of the Scheme is that the Capital Investment of the units, namely, Small Industrial Units, Medium Industrial Units and the Large Industrial Units and Units having project cost exceeding Rs. 10 Crores will be considered for the respective specified period from the date of commencement of the production or completion of the Scheme "whichever is earlier". 7.3 It is further submitted by Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-State that as such everybody; including the petitioner understood that the capital investment made only upto 31st December, 2005, or 18 months from the date of commencement of production; whichever is earlier, the benefit under the Scheme shall be available. It is submitted that none of the 105 projects like that of the petitioners have ever applied for investment made beyond 31st December, 2005 and/or none of the 105 projects like the petitioners have ever been given benefit under the incentive Scheme for investment made after expiry of the Scheme ie., 31st December, 2005. It is further submitted that even in the present case also, the petitioners even applied for Provisional Eligibility Certificate only with respect of expenses incurred upto 31st December, 2005 ie., Rs. 78.96 Crores. It is further submitted that even in the present case also, the petitioners even applied for Provisional Eligibility Certificate only with respect of expenses incurred upto 31st December, 2005 ie., Rs. 78.96 Crores. It is further submitted that even thereafter also, when in the year 2008, the petitioners applied for Final Eligibility Certificate, the petitioners applied for the same for the investment made upto 31st December, 2005 ie., Rs. 76.68 Crores. 7.4 It is submitted that, therefore, the said application for Final Eligibility Certificate, with respect to investment made, upto 31st December, 2005 (even as applied by the petitioners) came to be considered and thereafter, having been found that the petitioner company is entitled to the incentives on the investment made of Rs. 71.80 Crores, the Final Eligibility Certificate of Rs. 71.80 Crores has been issued. It is submitted that at that stage, no grievance was made by the petitioner at all. It is submitted that thereafter, for the first time, such a grievance has been made in the year 2008 which is nothing but an afterthought. It is submitted that thus from the very beginning, even the petitioner understood that they are entitled to incentives/Sales Tax exemption on the investment made upto 31st December 2005 only and consequently, they applied for Provisional Eligibility Certificate as well as Final Eligibility Certificate accordingly. 7.5 It is further submitted by Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General that even the petitioners have not pleaded the case of promissory estoppel. It is submitted that it is not the case on behalf of the petitioners and so pleaded in the petition that at the time of making investment, even upto 30th April 2007, they considered Clause 3.8 and thereby considered that they shall be entitled to incentives/sales tax exemption on the investment made upto April 2007, and therefore, they made the investment. It is submitted that therefore, in the present case, there is no question of applying the principles of promissory estoppel. It is submitted that therefore, in the present case, there is no question of applying the principles of promissory estoppel. 7.6 Now so far as submissions made on behalf of the petitioners that Phase-II of the Project can be said to be a pipeline project, and therefore, as per the subsequent decision, the period extended for pipeline projects ie., 31st December 2007 can be made applicable to the pipeline project, and therefore, treating Phase-II project as a Pipeline project, the investment made upto 31st December 2007, the petitioner shall be eligible to get the incentives on such investment made upto 31st December 2007 is concerned, it is submitted that the aforesaid has no substance. It is submitted that even as per the policy, once the commercial production has started, there is no question of considering the Unit/Industry as a pipeline project. There is nothing like dividing the project phase-wise. It is submitted that what can be considered the pipeline project is very much clear. It is submitted that therefore, Phase-II of the Project cannot be said to be a pipeline project more particularly once the petitioners had gone for commercial production on 30th October 2005. It is submitted that therefore, extension of the period applicable to pipeline projects shall not be applicable to the petitioners who had already started commercial production admittedly on 30th October 2005, and therefore, the petitioners are not eligible to get incentives on the investment made after 31.12.2005 and before 31.12.2007; as claimed by the petitioners. 7.7 Making above submissions and relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Aluminium Company v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services Inc., reported in [2016] 4 SCC 1265, and another decision in case of Secretary, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, Government of India v. CIPLA Limited & Ors., reported in [2003] 7 SCC 1 [on interpretation of Statute and/or Resolution and/or Scheme] and yet another decision in case of Afcon Infrastructure Limited v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited & Anr., AIR 2016 SC 4305 and the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Sal Steel Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [SCA No. 6299 of 2008], it is requested to dismiss the present writ petition. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 9. v. Union of India & Ors. [SCA No. 6299 of 2008], it is requested to dismiss the present writ petition. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 9. The short question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether the petitioner-Company is entitled to incentives/sales tax exemption under the Scheme on the investment/expenditure incurred after 31st December 2005 and upto 31st December 2007 treating the Phase II project of the petitioners as a pipeline project and/or on the investment/expenditure incurred after 31st December 2005, but within a period of 18 months from the date of commencement of commercial production? 9.1 It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that though the petitioner-Company started commercial production on 30th October 2005, however, at that time the investment was made in Phase-I project only and for Phase-II project, the work was in progress, and therefore, as with respect to pipeline projects, the Scheme was extended upto 31st December 2007, and therefore, considering the Phase II as a pipeline project, the investment made by the petitioner in Phase II project upto 31st December 2007, the petitioners are eligible for incentives/Sales-tax exemption on such expenses. Relying upon Clause 3.8 of the Scheme, it is also the case on behalf of the petitioners that atleast the petitioners are entitled to incentives/Sales-tax exemption on the expenses incurred upto 30th April 2007 ie., within eighteen months from the date of commencement of commercial production ie., 30th October 2005. 9.2 Now so far as the case on behalf of the petitioners that Phase-II project can be said to be a pipeline project, and therefore, as the Scheme was extended upto 31st December 2007 with respect to the pipeline projects, the petitioners are entitled to/eligible for Sales-tax exemption on the investment made upto 31st December 2007 is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. It is required to be noted that admittedly, the petitioners had gone for commercial production on and from 30th October 2005. There is nothing like Phase I or Phase II project in the Scheme. What can be said to be the pipeline unit has been specifically mentioned in the Government Resolution dated 9th November 2001 [in the Scheme]. It is required to be noted that admittedly, the petitioners had gone for commercial production on and from 30th October 2005. There is nothing like Phase I or Phase II project in the Scheme. What can be said to be the pipeline unit has been specifically mentioned in the Government Resolution dated 9th November 2001 [in the Scheme]. As per the Scheme/Government Resolution dated 9th November 2001, the pipeline Units are such which had not gone in for commercial production before 31st October 2004 [as per G.R dated 9th November 2001], and thereafter before 31st December 2004 [as per G.R dated 13th September 2004], and even thereafter before 31st December 2005 [as per G.R dated 7th January 2005]. Therefore, only those Units/Industries/Projects which had not gone in production before 31st December 2005 are considered as pipeline projects. In the present case, the petitioner-Company had already gone in production w.e.f 29th/30th October 2005, and therefore, as per the Scheme/Government Resolutions amended from time to time and lastly amended vide G.R dated 7th January 2005, the case of the petitioners shall not fall under the category of pipeline project. 10. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even when the petitioners submitted application in the prescribed format to the office of Industries Commissioner for issuance of Provisional Eligibility Certificate on 10th February 2006, the petitioner No. 1 Company claimed Sales Tax Exemption on the fixed Capital Investment incurred upto 31st December 2005 ie., Rs. 78.96 Crores. Even subsequently, when the petitioners submitted Chartered Accountant Certificate on 4th April 2006, the petitioner No. 1-Company declared total investment of Rs. 76.68 Crores upto 31st December 2005. Therefore, the Provisional Eligibility Certificate issued by the Industries Commissioner on 20th October 2006 is for an amount of Rs. 18.45 Crores, being 25% of the total investment incurred by the petitioners towards fixed Capital Investment made to the tune of Rs. 73.80 Crores. Thereafter, when some details were asked by the Industries Department for issuance of Final Eligibility Certificate, as per entitlement towards the Fixed Capital Investment incurred upto 31st December 2005, for the first time in the year 2007, the petitioner-Company wrote a letter to the Industries Commissioner that it had made further investment of Rs. 73.80 Crores. Thereafter, when some details were asked by the Industries Department for issuance of Final Eligibility Certificate, as per entitlement towards the Fixed Capital Investment incurred upto 31st December 2005, for the first time in the year 2007, the petitioner-Company wrote a letter to the Industries Commissioner that it had made further investment of Rs. 50.36 Crores from 1st January 2006 to 31st December 2006 and that in technical terms, its Unit was not completely set-up and was accordingly eligible for consideration as a "pipeline project". That the aforesaid was not accepted by the Industries Commissioner and by communication dated 30th April 2007, it was specifically and categorically conveyed that no question arises for considering its Unit as pipeline project and that all eligible expenses incurred in acquiring capital investment only upto 31st December 2005 would be considered. That thereafter, Final Eligibility Certificate was issued on 16th December 2008 for an amount of Rs. 71.80 Crores ie., the investment made upto the date of commercial production. Under the circumstances and considering the Scheme/Government Resolution and considering the fact that the petitioner No. 1 had gone for commercial production on 30th October 2005, Phase-II of the petitioners is rightly not held to be a "pipeline project", and therefore, issuance of Final Eligibility Certificate towards Sales-tax exemption, considering investment made upto 30th October 2005 ie., upto the date of commencement of commercial production is absolutely just, proper and legal, and in consonance with the provisions of the Scheme/Government Resolution. Therefore, the petitioners are not eligible for Sales-tax Exemption/Incentives on the investment/expenses incurred upto 31st December 2007, treating the same as a "pipeline project". 11. Now so far as the alternate submission made by learned advocate for the petitioner, relying upon Clause 3.8 of the Scheme and the submissions on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioner-Company shall be eligible for incentives/sales tax exemption on the investment made/expenses incurred after 31st December 2005, but within a period of 18 months from the date of commencement of commercial production is concerned, it is the case on behalf of the petitioners that in Clause 3.8 of the Scheme, the words, "whichever is earlier between the two" are not there in the case of Industrial Units having project cost exceeding Rs. 10 Crores, which words though are there in case of Small Scale Industrial Units, Medium and Large scale Industrial Units. 10 Crores, which words though are there in case of Small Scale Industrial Units, Medium and Large scale Industrial Units. Therefore, it is the case on behalf of the petitioners that in case of Industrial Units having project cost exceeding Rs. 10 Crores, the assets acquired within period of 18 months from the date of commencement of commercial production or till completion of the Scheme ie., 31st December 2005, shall be considered eligible for the purpose of incentives. Therefore, it is the case on behalf of the petitioner that as the date of commencement of commercial production in their case is 30th October 2005, all the expenses incurred by the petitioner-Company upto 30th April 2007 ie., 18 months from the date of commencement of commercial production are eligible for grant of incentives. 12. On the other hand, it is the specific case on behalf of the State that in fact, the duration of the Incentive Scheme was upto 31st December 2005, and therefore, the incentive scheme was valid from 31st July 2001 to 31st December 2005 and from the beginning, the intention of the framers of the Scheme/State Government was that the assets acquired within a period of 18 months from the date of commencement of production or till the completion of the said Scheme [whichever is earlier between the two] shall be considered eligible for the purpose of incentive. It is the case on behalf of the State that, however, through oversight, with respect to Industrial Units having project cost exceeding Rs. 10 Crores, the words, "whichever is earlier between the two" are missing when it had gone to the press for publication. It is submitted that it being an inadvertent mistake that the words, "whichever is earlier between the two" are not printed in the Gujarati version of the Scheme. It is the case on behalf of the State that in English version, the expression "whichever is earlier between the two" is there. However, the same had not gone to the press, and therefore, the same could not be published. It is the case on behalf of the State that even with respect to other similar 105 Industrial Undertakings, the investment/assets acquired upto 31st December 2005 only have been considered eligible for the purpose of incentives; including the petitioners. However, the same had not gone to the press, and therefore, the same could not be published. It is the case on behalf of the State that even with respect to other similar 105 Industrial Undertakings, the investment/assets acquired upto 31st December 2005 only have been considered eligible for the purpose of incentives; including the petitioners. 12.1 In light of the above, the question posed for consideration before this Court; as stated hereinabove, is required to be considered. 13. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering Clause 3.8 of the Scheme, at the outset, it is required to be noted that in case of Small Scale Industrial Units, Medium and Large scale Industrial Units, the assets acquired upto the period of six months or within 1 year from the date of commencement of commercial production or till the date of completion of the said Scheme ie., 31st December 2005; whichever is earlier between the two, shall be considered eligible for the purpose of Incentives. However, in the Gujarati version of the Incentive Scheme, the expression "whichever is earlier between the two" is missing in case of Industrial Units having project cost exceeding Rs. 10 Crores. The aforesaid seems to be an inadvertent mistake in publication/typing. The aforesaid aspect has been explained in detail, while narrating the sequence which led to introduction of Incentive Scheme in paras 5 to 7 of the affidavit dated 6th December 2016 filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1, which read as under:- "5. In this behalf, as is discernible from the Government file, I clearly suggests that originally, the Incentive Scheme in question was intended to be extended to all the industrial units regardless of any distinction like Small, Medium and Large Scale Units vis-à-vis the project cost involved therein, with a categorical condition that the project cost, i.e. capital expenditure incurred and paid during the period of operation of the Incentive Scheme, would be taken into account. This clearly shows as to what was intended by the State Government. However, thereafter, in the initial draft of the Resolution, clause No. 3.8 thereof carried only Small Scale, Medium Scale and Large Scale Units without there being any mention as regards the Units having project cost exceeding Rs. 10 Crore. It is only after further deliberation that the provision of the Units having project cost exceeding Rs. However, thereafter, in the initial draft of the Resolution, clause No. 3.8 thereof carried only Small Scale, Medium Scale and Large Scale Units without there being any mention as regards the Units having project cost exceeding Rs. 10 Crore. It is only after further deliberation that the provision of the Units having project cost exceeding Rs. 10 crore came to be incorporated in the said clause 3.8. Though, the said provision was made subsequently by adding the Industrial Units having investment exceeding Rs. 10 crore, unfortunately, the qualifying condition _____ _____________, was inadvertently omitted to be mentioned. Thus, if one peruses the file and intention of the Government is to be culled out therefrom, it goes to show that the capital investment incurred and paid during the specified period from the date of commencement of commercial production or till the currency of the Scheme, whichever is earlier, was to be taken into account for extending the benefits of the Incentive Scheme. 6. The aforesaid discussion, even otherwise gets support from the fact that Clause 3.8 is bifurcated into three parts and is applicable to the respective units viz. Small scale, Medium scale and Industrial Units involving project cost exceeding Rs. 10 crore, and Large scale as per their investment. Firstly, for small scale units, the condition reads to the effect that the capital investment will be taken into account made during the period of six months from the date of commencement of the production or till the completion of the scheme, whichever is earlier. Secondly, for medium and large scale projects, the clause similarly provides consideration of capital investment made during the period of one year from the date of commencement of commercial production or till the completion of the scheme, whichever is earlier. Thirdly, so is the position with respect to the Units having project cost exceeding Rs.10 crore, wherein the qualifying expression "whichever is earlier", was inadvertently omitted to be mentioned. 7. Thus, the intention behind the said clause 3.8 is that the capital investment of the units viz., small scale, medium scale, large scale and the units having project cost exceeding Rs. 10 crore, will be considered for the respective specified period from the date of commencement of production or completion of the scheme, whichever is earlier. Mere non-mentioning of the term "whichever is earlier" after the condition applicable to the units having investment exceeding Rs. 10 crore, will be considered for the respective specified period from the date of commencement of production or completion of the scheme, whichever is earlier. Mere non-mentioning of the term "whichever is earlier" after the condition applicable to the units having investment exceeding Rs. 10 crores, does not extend the benefit under the scheme for a longer period than the currency of the scheme i.e. beyond 31st December, 2005. It may be appreciated that the expression 'whichever is earlier' at the end of the said clause 3.8 is inadvertently omitted to be mentioned in view of the fact that the last underlined portion in clause 3.8 referred to above, relating to Units having project cost exceeding Rs. 10 crore was added later on, as a result of the further deliberation. It is pertinent to mentioned that none of the 105 projects like that of the petitioners have ever been given the benefits under the Incentive Scheme after the expiry of 31st December, 2005 even though the specified periods viz. 6 months, 1 year and 18 months, as the case may be from the date of commencement of commercial production in those cases, had spread over beyond the last date of the operation period of the said Incentive Scheme i.e. 31st December, 2005 (except pipe-line cases)." 13.1 Nobody can be permitted to take undue advantage/disadvantage of the beneficial Scheme due to inadvertent mistake in publication. 13.2 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that even considering Clause 3.8 of the Scheme, in case of Industrial Units having project cost exceeding Rs. 10 Crores, it is mentioned that the assets acquired within a period of 18 months form the date of commencement of production, or till the completion of the said Scheme, shall be considered eligible for the purpose of incentives. Therefore, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners that the assets acquired upto 30th April 2007 are required to be considered eligible for the purpose of incentive; if is accepted, in that case, the words/expressions "till the completion of the said Scheme" shall be meaningless. Therefore, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners that the assets acquired upto 30th April 2007 are required to be considered eligible for the purpose of incentive; if is accepted, in that case, the words/expressions "till the completion of the said Scheme" shall be meaningless. The intention of the framers of the Scheme ie., the State Government is very clear and unambiguous ie., to consider the assets acquired maximum upto 31st December 2005 shall be considered eligible for the purpose of incentives, or the assets acquired within a period of 18 months from the date of commencement of commercial production, if the same is before 31st December 2005. For example, in a case where the date of commencement of production is 1st day of January 2002, in that case, the assets acquired within period of 18 months from 1st January 2002 shall be considered eligible for the purpose of incentives and in other cases, the assets acquired on or before 31st December 2005 shall be considered eligible for the purpose of grant of incentive. 14. At this stage, it is required to be noted that it is the specific case on behalf of the State that none of the other 105 projects; like that of the petitioners, have ever been given benefit of incentive scheme on the expenses incurred after expiry of the term ie., 31st December 2005 and with respect to all the 105 projects; including the petitioners, the assets acquired within 18 months from the date of commencement of commercial production or till completion of the Scheme ie., 31st December 2005 [whichever is earlier between the two] are considered eligible for the incentive. Under the circumstances, as such, the State have treated all equally and with equal standard. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even the petitioners have not alleged any violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and/or discrimination. 14.1 It is also required to be noted that the understanding of the Scheme; including that of the petitioners, was in line suggested by the State Government. All the 105 projects which are beneficiaries of the Incentive Scheme 2001 applied for eligibility certificate and thereby claimed incentives on the assets acquired on or before 31st December 2005 only. None of the projects had claimed incentives on the assets acquired after 31st December 2005. All the 105 projects which are beneficiaries of the Incentive Scheme 2001 applied for eligibility certificate and thereby claimed incentives on the assets acquired on or before 31st December 2005 only. None of the projects had claimed incentives on the assets acquired after 31st December 2005. At this stage, it is also required to be noted that even the petitioners also understood from the very beginning the Scheme in the manner as suggested by the State Government and they also understood that on the assets acquired within a period of 18 months from the date of commencement of commercial production or till the completion of the Scheme ie., 31st December 2005 [whichever is earlier between the two], shall be considered eligible for the purpose of grant of incentive and that is how, when the petitioners applied for Provisional Eligibility Certificate, they considered assets acquired only upto 31st December 2005 amounting Rs. 78.96 Crores/Rs. 76.68 Crores. While submitting application for grant of Provisional Eligibility Certificate, the petitioners submitted a Certificate issued by Chartered Accountant with respect to the investment made upto 31st December 2005 ie., Rs. 76.68 Crores and accordingly, Provisional Eligibility Certificate was issued, considering the investment made of Rs. 76.68 Crores only. 14.2 At this stage, it is required to be noted that even at no point of time till the present petition is filed, the petitioners claimed benefit of incentives/Sales-tax Exemption on the investment made after 31st December 2005, but within a period of 18 months from the date of commercial production ie., made upto 30th April 2007. As observed hereinabove, all throughout the year 2007-2008, the claim of the petitioners was that its Phase-II may be considered as a "pipeline project". Therefore, the claim made in the present petition ie., claim of incentives/Sales-tax exemption on the investment made after 31st December 2005 but within a period of 18 months from the date of commercial production is nothing but an afterthought, and to take undue advantage of the mistake in printing; more particularly, Clause 3.8 of the Scheme, where inadvertently, the words "whichever is earlier between the two" is missing. 15. 15. The sum and substance of the aforesaid is that even the petitioners also understood that the assets acquired within a period of 18 months from the commencement of commercial production or till the Scheme ends on 31st December 2005 [whichever is earlier between the two] shall be considered eligible for the purpose of the incentive. It is also not the case on behalf of the petitioners in the petition that in fact they understood, considering Clause 3.8 that the assets acquired within a period of 18 months from the date of commencement of the commercial production shall also be considered eligible for incentive and therefore, they made investment subsequently. The petitioners have also not pleaded any estoppel or promissory estoppel. Under the circumstances, when the petitioners and all other Industrial Units/Undertakings/Projects [105 in number] understood the Scheme, the manner in which the State Government had pleaded and all are treated equally and in case of all Industrial Undertakings/Projects, the assets acquired only upto 31st December 2005 are considered eligible for the purpose of incentive, the petitioners are not entitled to incentive on the assets acquired subsequently after commencement of commercial production or after 31st December 2005. 16. Now so far as reliance placed on the decisions of Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 5638 of 2011 & 11768 of 2013 by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that in the case before the Division Bench, the controversy was with respect to investment/assets acquired upto 31st December 2005 only and even the pleadings in the first petition, being Special Civil Application No. 5638 of 2011 was also with respect to the assets acquired/investment made upto 31st December 2005 only. No such case was pleaded before the Division Bench with respect to investment made during 18 months from the date of commencement of commercial production. As such, there was no controversy before the Division Bench with respect to the assets acquired/investment made after 31st December 2005 and made during 18 months from the date of commencement of commercial production. Under the circumstances, as such there was no lis between the parties with respect to the said controversy. As such, there was no controversy before the Division Bench with respect to the assets acquired/investment made after 31st December 2005 and made during 18 months from the date of commencement of commercial production. Under the circumstances, as such there was no lis between the parties with respect to the said controversy. Even otherwise in the said decision, while disposing of Special Civil Application No. 5638 of 2011, the Division Bench has nowhere held that the investment/assets acquired during 18 months from the date of commencement of commercial production and after 31st December 2005 may be considered eligible for incentive. No such prayer is granted. It appears that while deciding the question involved in the said petition, some submissions were made with respect to Investment made during 18 months from the date of commencement of commercial production and without any specific finding on the same, the Division Bench has disposed of the said petition by directing the State Government to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with law. Therefore, the aforesaid decision cannot be said to be deciding the question on merits viz., whether on the assets acquired/investment made after 31st December 2005, but during 18 months from the date of commencement of commercial production, the same is eligible for incentive or not. Under the circumstances, the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 5638 of 2011 and Special Civil Application No. 11768 of 2013 shall not be of any assistance to the petitioners and/or the same shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 17. Now so far as reliance placed on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Mahashakti Coke v. State of Gujarat [Supra] is concerned, on a close look at the said decision, we are of the opinion that in the said decision, there is no specific finding given by the Division Bench of this Court with respect to investments/assets acquired after 31st December 2005, but within 18 months from the date of commencement of commercial production. Even the claim in the said petition was with respect to investment made prior to 31.12.2005 of Rs.1,31,29,19,074/- ie., on investment made prior to 31.12.2005. However, the eligible amount of Sales Tax Scheme recommended was only Rs. 63.04 Crores and the same was controversy before the Division Bench. Even the claim in the said petition was with respect to investment made prior to 31.12.2005 of Rs.1,31,29,19,074/- ie., on investment made prior to 31.12.2005. However, the eligible amount of Sales Tax Scheme recommended was only Rs. 63.04 Crores and the same was controversy before the Division Bench. Before the Division Bench, there was no dispute with respect to the investment made after 31st December 2005 but within 18 months from the date of commencement of commercial production. Under the circumstances also, the said decision shall not be applicable to the case on hand and/or the same shall not be of any assistance to the petitioners herein. 18. In view of the above and for the reasons aforestated, the present writ petition with respect to claim of the petitioners for incentive/sales tax exemption on the investment made/assets acquired after 31st December 2005, but made on or before 31st December 2007 ie., within a period of 18 months from the date of commencement, treating its Phase-II project as a "pipeline project" and the alternate claim of the petitioners for incentives/sales-tax exemption on the investment made/assets acquired after 31st December 2005 but made on or before 31st April 2007 ie., within a period of 18 months from the date of commercial production are hereby rejected. It is held that the petitioners are not entitled to the incentives/Sales-tax exemption on the total expenses/investment made thereafter upto 31st December 2007 and/or upto 31st April 2007; as claimed. It is also held that they are entitled to Incentives/Sales-tax exemption on the investment made or assets acquired upto the date of commercial production upto 30th October 2005. 19. In view of the above and for the reasons aforestated, the present writ petition fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. Ad interim relief; if any, stands vacated forthwith. No costs.