S.S. SANDHAWALIA, C.J.

(1.) Whether Resolution No. 17767 of the Government of Bihar dated 19th October, 1979, continues the benefits extended earlier to the newly set-up small-scale industrial units, including an exemption from sales tax till 30th September, 1979, has come to be the significant issue in this reference to the Full Bench.

(2.) Messrs. Tara Steel Industries was set up as a small-scale unit by its proprietor. In order to avail the exemption for the sales tax on the purchase of raw materials as well as finished goods granted by the State of Bihar as an incentive to small-scale industries, the petitioner-firm applied for registration before the District Industries Centre, Bhagalpur, and was granted registration certificate No. 03/01/01525/Prov/SSI dated 3rd January, 1979. It has been averred that the petitioner-firm invested a huge amount of money to set up the small-scale industry but on account of imponderable factors the production could not be started prior to 22nd August, 1979. Later, the industries department granted a permanent certificate No. 03/01/02053 dated 27th August, 1979, specifically recording therein that production has started from 22nd August, 1979.

(3.) With a view to providing incentives for industrialisation in the State of Bihar, respondent No. 3 in exercise of the power conferred under Section 4(3)(b) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959, issued Notification No. S. O. 363 dated 14th March, 1974, whereby it exempted from the levy of general sales tax, special sales tax and purchase talc and sales of such raw materials to the owner of a newly set-up small-scale unit approved and registered by the department of industry for a period of five years from the date the industry started its production (vide annexure 3 to the writ petition). Similar exemptions were granted or extended from time to time with regard to the sale and purchase of finished products, etc., by the newly set-up small-scale industries (vide annexures 4, 6 and 6). Particular reliance is then placed on annexure 7 dated 19th October, 1979, whereby the respondent-State has extended all the incentives which were being given to the small-scale units up to 31st March, 1979, to 30th September, 1979, as the Government was considering the finalisation of the nature of incentives to be given to industries after the Sixth 5-Year Plan period of 1974-79. Reference has then been made to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kailash Roller Flour Mills v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (1980) 28 BLJR 432 and the circular of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes directing to give incentives to all the new small-scale industries in accord with the said judgment. The petitioner-firm claims that it satisfies all the conditions and requirements necessary for the benefits and exemption granted to small-scale industrial units till 30th September, 1979, in view of annexure 7. Nevertheless respondent No. 1, by his order dated 24th November, 1982 (annexure 10), has, inter alia, held that the petitioner cannot get the benefits of exemption because the same were available only up to 31st March, 1979, whilst the petitioner started production later on 22nd August, 1979. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been preferred.

3A. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-State, the factual aspect of the petitioner having been set up as a registered small-scale industrial unit is not put in dispute. The basic stand taken is that the petitioner admittedly having gone into production from 22nd August, 1979, was not entitled to get the exemptions which were available only for units which had started production up to 1st July, 1976. Reference is made to a maze of notifications extending or withdrawing these benefits subsequent to the year 1973-74. It is the stand that annexure 7 dated 19th October, 1979, only extended the period of incentives already available to small-scale industrial units under the prior resolutions of the Government. It is claimed that industries which have started production after 1st July, 1976, are not entitled to the benefits under Resolution No. 16808 dated 29th September, 1973, but are entitled for the benefits only under Resolution No. 14831 dated 29th June, 1976, and Resolution No. 26245 dated 29th November, 1976, issued by the industries department. It is claimed that by virtue of the later resolutions, industrial units, which have gone into production after 1st July, 1976, will get exemption from tax only on the purchase of raw materials, but on the finished goods they will get interest-free loan equivalent to the annual tax paid to the commercial taxes department in terms of the order of assessment. On those premises, the impugned order (annexure 10) is defended as valid and in accordance with the earlier governmental notifications and resolutions.

(4.) This case had originally came up before a Division Bench but apparently noticing the larger ramifications of the issue involved, the matter was referred to a larger Bench.

(5.) Inevitably, the claim of the petitioner is embedded in the background of the concessions given to the newly set-up small-scale industrial units by the respondent-State of Bihar from time to time. However, the history of the exemptions of sales tax to the newly set-up small-scale industries need not be recounted in any great detail. Only, its fluctuating fortunes which disclose little method in the whimsicality of the grant and withdrawal of such exemptions at cryptic intervals may be briefly noticed. It would appear that the first notification in this context was issued on 19th September, 1969, but retrospectivity was sought to be given to it by three months and it was to remain in force from 19th June, 1969, to 31st March, 1974. Later, by annexures 3 and 4 (vide Notifications Nos. S. O. 353 and S. O. 351 respectively both dated 14th March, 1974), the earlier concessions were extended for five years from 1st April, 1974, to 31st March, 1979. However, by Notification No. S. O. 1082 dated 30th June, 1976, the earlier notifications were withdrawn with effect from 1st July, 1976, abolishing the exemption totally. Curiously, again eight months later on 18th January, 1977 (vide Notifications Nos. S. O. 141 and S. 0. 139 both dated 18th January, 1977-annexures 5 and 6 respectively), the exemption was sought to be restored with some element of retrospectivity. In both the notifications it was stated that they shall come into force with effect from 1st July, 1976, and shall remain in force till 31st March, 1979. Thereafter also the cycle of abolishing and restoring the exemption has been repeated. Therefore, the fluctuating fortunes of the grant of exemption, its unceremonious withdrawal and its cryptic restoration at various times would all tend to indicate that the respondent-State in its wisdom temperamentally granted the exemption or withdrew or restored it at will for reasons which, far from being patent on the record, appear to be not rationally discernible.

(6.) In the light of the above, the issue necessarily turns on the language and import of the notifications and the relevant resolutions of the Government passed in this context. Now it is common ground that by virtue of annexures 6 and 6 the benefits of exemption from sales tax for the newly set-up small-scale industries were extended up to 31st March, 1979. The core question, therefore, is whether the same benefits as also the others granted earlier have, in terms, been extended by Resolution No. 17767 dated 19th October, 1979 (annexure 7), up to 30th September, 1979, unreservedly.

(7.) Hereinafter a somewhat rambling stand the heart of the argument on behalf of the petitioner was channelled into a narrow compass. Its learned counsel, Mr. Rajgarhia, utimately contended that by Resolution No. 16808 of 29th September, 1973, duly published in the Gazette on 12th October, 1973, the tax relief had been granted unreservedly to the small-scale industry without any limitation of a cut-off date with regard to the commencement of production. It was pointed out that by annexure 7 express reference was made to this resolution and the benefits thereof in identical terms were extended till a further period of six months up to 30th September, 1979, till the matter was finally determined by the Government. Consequently, the petitioner, which admittedly started production on 22nd August, 1979, would squarely be within the ambit of annexure 7 and thus plainly entitled to exemption.

(8.) There appears to be patent merit in the stand taken on behalf of the writ petitioner. It would appear that right from 1969 the State of Bihar, in order to promote industrialisation within its territory, was extending promises and benefits of various incentives for small-scale industries. The rationale for these incentives and their detail were recounted in the notified resolution of the Government of Bihar under the order of the Governor of Bihar in Resolution No. 16808 of 29th September, 1973, as follows :

GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR Department of Industries and Technical Education (Industries) Resolution No. 16808 dated the 29th September, 1973. Subject: Incentive for small-scale industries in the State of Bihar. Development of small-scale industries has been recognised as an important strategy in promoting economic growth and social justice. In Bihar the promotion of small-scale industries has been accepted by the State Government as one which should be given the topmost priority in order to raise the low per capita income, reduce unemployment, promote economic utilisation of valuable minerals for the public good, ensure growth of auxiliary/ancillary industries to the large and medium industries and public sector undertakings of the Central and State Governments. In pursuance of these objectives, the State Government have decided that the following incentives would be granted to registered small-scale industries : Tax Relief: 1. New small-scale industries will be exempted from sales tax on raw materials for a period of five years from the date of production and there will also be exemption of sales tax on finished products at the first stage of sale after production, either multi-point or single point tax as may be applicable...."

A plain reading of the above would leave no manner of doubt that the registered small-scale industries were given tax relief in widely couched terms. Herein there was no cut-off date with regard to the commencement of production. In unqualified terms it was stated that such industry would be exempted from sales tax for a period of five years from the date of production both with regard to sale and purchase of raw materials and of their finished products at the first stage of sale. Apart from the above, other concessions like preferential treatment in Government purchases, allotment of built-up factory sheds in the industrial estates, allotment of land in industrial area, concessional rates of electricity tariff, etc., were also extended. The resolution expressly stated that these incentives will take effect from 1st October, 1973, and shall remain in force till the end of the Fifth 5-Year Plan which admittedly is 31st March, 1979.

(9.) It is in the light of the above that the true meaning and import of annexure 7 dated 19th October, 1979, is to be construed. The relevant part of annexure 7 including item No. 1 of the schedule thereof may be quoted for facility of reference : GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR Directorate of Industries Resolution Subject: Different types of incentives to promote industrial development of the State. With regard to enforcement of the previous resolutions up to 30th September, 1979, for the year 1979-80, being ineffective since 31st March, 1979 : With a view to promoting the industrial development of the State different types of incentives were given for making various facilities available to small/ large/medium/sick and closed industries and Engineer entrepreneurs during the plan period of 74-75 and 78-79 in the Fifth 6-Year Plan, the description of which, in various resolutions, is available in the enclosed appendix. 2. The incentives as described in the enclosed appendix have become ineffective since 31st March, 1979. The nature of incentives to be given to industries after the Sixth 5-Year Plan period of 1978-79 is being determined. In the meantime the Government has taken the decision that all incentive schemes having been operative till March, 1979, be continued as such till 30th September, 1979. 3. The concurrence of the Finance Department and the Planning Department has already been obtained.... Description of the enclosures on records :

(10.) Now, reading Resolution No. 17767 of 19th October, 1979, together with Resolution No. 16808 of 29th September, 1973, as it must necessarily be done because of the express mention of the later resolution in the schedule, there would remain no doubt that all incentive schemes which were operative till March, 1979, are continued and extended up to 30th September, 1979. The learned counsel for the respondent-State, Mr. Keshav, had strenuously attempted to bank on the cut-off date of 1st July, 1976, which finds reference in annexures 6 and 6. It was sought to be contended that because the petitioner-concern started production after that cut-off date-on 22nd August, 1979-it was not entitled to the tax relief. This stand has only to be noticed and rejected. It is significant that the earlier Resolution No. 16808 of 29th September, 1973, did not even remotely mention any cut-off date whatsoever and, was therefore plainly applicable to the newly set-up small-scale industrial units commencing production till 31st March, 1979. Once it is held, as it must be, that annexure 7 continued and extended all the benefits granted by Resolution No. 16808 then any question of a cut-off date automatically gets excluded. All the earlier benefits thereby were continued and extended till 30th September, 1979. Admittedly the petitioner-firm even commenced production within this date and had been duly registered earlier as well to claim the necessary benefits. Consequently, the petitioner would be clearly entitled to the exemption from the sales tax to which it has rightly laid claim.

(11.) In fairness to Mr. Keshav, learned counsel for the respondent-State, a somewhat hyper-technical stand taken by him must also be noticed. It was sought to be argued that even though annexure 7 was admittedly a resolution of the Government of Bihar and had been duly published in the official Gazette in the name of the Government and by the order of the Governor of Bihar, it was nevertheless not a notification strictu Act and Section 7 of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981, which provide that the State Government may, by notification and subject to such conditions and restrictions, as it may impose,-exempt from the levy of the general sales tax or special sales tax or both or the levy of purchase tax, etc. It was submitted that unless the notification was made under the aforesaid sections and by express reference-thereto, there could be no valid exemption in the eye of law.

(12.) Though the aforesaid contention may bring some credit to the ingenuity of the learned counsel for the respondent-State, it nevertheless is fallacious. The Bihar and Orissa General Clauses Act, 1917, defines the "notification" under Section 4(36) thereof in the following terms: Notification shall mean a notification in the Gazette. Section 28 of the aforesaid Act then sanctifies the publication of orders and notifications in the Gazette in the following terms : Wherein any Bihar and Orissa Act or Bihar Act or in any Rules made under any such Act, it is directed that any order, notification or other matter shall be notified or published, such notification or publication shall, unless the Act otherwise provides, be deemed to be duly made if it is published in the Gazette. Now it seems plain from the above (and no other provisions to the contrary could be brought to our notice) and, indeed, it was common ground that the law has not prescribed any particular or peculiar form for a notification generally or those under the Sales Tax Act. That being so, where a formal resolution of the Government expressly issued in its name and recorded by the order of the Governor is duly published in the Gazette, specifying in express terms the exemptions to be granted, can it possibly be said that it would not come within the ambit of the notifications referred to in the Sales Tax Act The answer plainly seems to be that the same would be a notification in term/3 or in any case a substantial compliance with the law which would render any distinction betwixt the two as one without a legal difference. The same would come squarely within the import and ambit of Sections 4(3) of the Sales Tax Act and 7(3) of the Bihar Finance Act. In this peculiar context, the rule of law that any beneficent tax provision has to be liberally construed would also come into play. Way back in [1960] 38 ITR 241 (257) [Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chugandas and Co. (Securities)] it had been observed as follows: Lastly, it was argued by Mr. Palkhivala that, since we are dealing with an exemption clause, if there was any doubt as to the true interpretation of the exemption clause, the exemption should be liberally construed provided no violence is done to the language employed in the section. This, no doubt, has been held to be the proper canon of construction by the Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Agricultural Income tax v. Raja Jagadish Chandra Deo [1949] 17 ITR 426 [LQ/CalHC/1948/116] , 438 and by the Patna High Court in Kameshwar Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1964] 26 ITR 121 (132) and we certainly accept that canon of construction. Again a Division Banch of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu I v. Simpson and Company [1980] 122 ITR 283 [LQ/MadHC/1976/520] has held as follows: It is also a well-settled principle of construction that in construing a provision for exemption or relief, it should be liberally construed. The reason behind this rule of interpretation is that the administrative authorities or the courts should not whittle down the plenitude of the exemption or relief granted by Parliament , by laying stress on any ambiguity here or there. Both on principle and precedent, it has, therefore, to be held that a formal resolution" of the Government duly published in the official Gazette under the name and order of the Governor would squarely come within the ambit of "notification". Consequently, the petitioner would be clearly entitled to the exemption under annexure 7.

(13.) In fairness to Mr. Rajgarhia, the learned counsel for the petitioner, it must be noticed that he also relied on the doctrine of promissory estoppel as against any hyper-technical objections raised on the point that annexure 7 was not a notification. It was his case that the respondent-State had expressly held out a promise of exemption to the newly set-up small-scale industries on the basis of which the petitioner had materially changed its position by setting up the industry within the State of Bihar and the latter could not be allowed to go back on its own decision and resolution duly published in the Gazette in the name of the Governor of the State on such pettifogging technicalities that even such a clear-cut governmental decision would not grant exemption. It was contended that in any case it does not now lie in the mouth of the respondent-State to take a contrary stand and it would be estopped from doing so. It was also pointed out that in fact such benefits of exemption in identical circumstances had been already extended to other newly set-up small-scale entrepreneurs and the denial of the same to the petitioner would be plainly discriminatory if not mala fide. In the context of the view which I have already taken in favour of the petitioner, it becomes unnecessary to examine and pronounce on these plausible submissions as well.

(14.) In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 24th November, 1982 (annexure 10), passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bhagalpur Circle (respondent No. 1), is quashed with the direction that the liability to sales tax be assessed afresh in accordance with the findings in this judgment. I leave the parties to bear their own costs.