B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. - (1.) In this writ petition, the validity of an order passed by the Divisional Level Committee, Allahabad, dated 23rd December, 1988, rejecting the review petition filed by the petitioners, is being challenged. The proceedings arise under section 4-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The petitioners established a small-scale industrial unit for manufacturing cycle stands and carriers during the year 1984-85. According to the petitioners, though they applied for a power connection in December, 1984, it was not given to them immediately. The power connection was sanctioned to them in January, 1986 and the actual connection effected on 20th May, 1986. Meanwhile, the petitioners say, they started production manually with the help of oven, dies and moulds. They purchased raw material for the first time on 1st March, 1985. They effected first sale of their manufactured products on 30th March, 1985. The petitioners applied for exemption from payment of sales tax under section 4-A of the Act and the notifications issued thereunder. By his proceeding dated 26th April, 1988, the Divisional Joint Director of Industries, Allahabad, informed the petitioners that their unit has been granted exemption under section 4-A of the Act for a period of three years commencing from 1st March, 1985. Contending that the date of starting production in the petitioners' unit should be taken as 20th May, 1986, being the date, on which power connection was given to them and not 1st March, 1985, as has been done by the Divisional Joint Director of Industries, the petitioners filed a review petition before the authorities. The petitioners further contended that they are entitled to five-year period of exemption commencing from 20th May, 1986, as, on the said date, capital investment in their unit was more than rupees lacs. On 16th June, 1988, the petitioners say, they submitted further clarification in continuation of their review petition. By proceeding dated 23rd December, 1988 of the Division Level Committee (communicated by respondent No. 3 by hie letter dated 29th December, 1988), the petitioners were informed that 30th March, 1985, has been accepted as the date of starting production in their unit, in the place of 1st March, 1985. Their plea that the date of starting production should be 20th May, 1986 and that the exemption should be for a period of five years had, however, been rejected. In this writ petition, the proceedings of the Divisional Level Committee dated 23rd December, 1988, in so far as they are against the petitioners, are challenged. The main contention of the petitioners is that inasmuch as power connection was given to their unit on 20th May, 1986, that should be taken as the date of starting production. The earlier production manually was done only with a view not to keep the unit idle. It is contended that the generator, which was installed in the unit, was purchased prior to 1st March, 1985; and, therefore, the capital investment in the unit on the said date was more than rupees three lacs. On this basis, it is contended that the petitioners are entitled to exemption for a period of five years, at any rate, from 30th March, 1985. Two counter-affidavits, have been filed on behalf of the respondents. One counter-affidavit is filed by a senior clerk, in the Office of the Joint Director of Industries, Allahabad, in which it is stated that investment in the petitioner's unit, as on 1st March, 1985, was less than rupees three lacs; and since they purchased raw material on 1st March, 1985, that is the date of starting of production. It is submitted that the review petition filed by the petitioner was considered carefully and as the first sale was effected by the petitioners on 30th March, 1985, that was taken as the date of starting production in the case of the petitioners' unit. In view of the fact that the petitioners started production and also effected sale in March, 1985 itself, it is stated, 20th May, 1986, cannot be taken as the date of starting of production in their unit. With respect to the purchase of generator, it is submitted that no material was placed before the authority to show that the generator was received and installed prior to 1st March, 1985. It is accordingly contended by the respondents that the capital investment in the petitioners' unit on 1st March, 1985/30th March, 1985, was less than rupees three lacs. In the second counter-affidavit filed by the Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur, it is stated that the petitioners applied for registration on 30th January, 1985, saying that their business was to commence from 1st January, 1985. After necessary inquiry, a provisional registration under section 8-B of the Act was granted on 20th February, 1985. The petitioners filed monthly sale returns in the prescribed form. No sales were shown to have been effected in January and February, but sales worth Rs. 26,070 were shown to have been effected in March, 1985. The petitioners applied for exemption in November, 1985 and their application was received in the office on 21st November, 1985. In this application, the petitioners showed 1st March, 1985, the actual date of production in column No. 11 and in column No. 9, it was stated that the production started by hand tools since 1st March, 1985. Even in their S. S. I. registration, the date of commencement of production was shown as 1st March, 1985. It is stated that it is on this basis that the petitioners were granted exemption for a period of three years commencing from 1st March, 1985. However, when the petitioners filed a review petition, the date of commencement of the period of exemption was altered to 30th March, 1985, since that is the first date of sale of manufactured goods by the petitioners. The inquiries revealed that the generator was not purchased prior to 1st March, 1985; but that it was purchased locally on 4th March, 1985, after the date of starting of production. In these circumstances, it is stated that the date of obtaining the power connection, i. e. , 20th May, 1986, cannot be accepted as the date of starting production in the petitioners' unit. Indeed, such a contention is opposed to the petitioner' own statements made in several applications referred to above, wherein they put forward a case that the production started on 1st March, 1985, in their unit. The petitioners filed rejoinder-affidavits to both counter-affidavits. Suffice it to state that the petitioners have not denied that they started production on 1st March, 1985 and effected sale of their manufactured goods for the first time on 30th March, 1985. Their main contention is that since the power connection was received on 20th May, 1986, that should be treated as the date of starting of production in their unit, in the light of explanation (ii) to sub-section (2) of section 4-A of the Act. The impugned order dated 23rd December, 1988/29th December, 1988, says that the date of starting production in the case of the petitioners' unit should be taken as 30th March, 1985, instead of 1st March, 1985 and that except for this modification, the earlier order dated 26th April, 1988, shall stand confirmed. The impugned order also deals with the petitioners' contention relating to the installation of generator. It says that the generator was not utilised for production purposes before the date of commencement of production and that permission of the Electricity Department was not obtained for running it. It was used for production purposes only after the date of starting of production. Hence the capital investment in the petitioners' unit on the date of start of production was less than rupees three lacs. On this basis, it is stated that the request for exemption for a period of five years is untenable. Explanation (ii) to sub-section (2) of section 4-A of the Act defines the expression "date of starting production" as "the date on which any raw material required for use in the manufacture or packing of the specified goods is purchased for the first time or the date of installation of power connection, where needed, whichever is later". Sub-section (1) of section 4-A, as amended by the U. P. Amendment Act No. VI of 1985 with effect from 19th January, 1985, specifies the date from which the exemption could operate. In so far as it is relevant for the purposes of this case, it reads : ". . . . . . . . . from such date on or after the date of starting production as may be specified by the State Government in such notification, which may be the date of the notification or a date prior or subsequent to the date of such notification, and where no date is specified from the date of first sale by such manufacturer if such sale takes place within six months from the date of starting production and in any other case from the date following the expiration of six months from the date of starting production. . . . . . " A reading of the above provision shows that the date of commencement of the exemption period may be such as may be specified by the State Government in the notification issued by it and in cases where no such date is specified, it shall be the date of the first sale by such manufacturer provided such sale takes place within six months from the date of starting production; in case, however, the date of first sale falls beyond the said six month period, the date, on which the six months period expires, shall be taken as the date of commencement of the period of exemption. Now, the notification issued by the State Government on 29th January, 1985, under section 4-A of the Act, specifies the date of commencement of the period of exemption as "the date of first sale, if such sale takes place not later than six months from the date of starting production, or, in other cases, from the date following the expiration of six months from the date of starting production. . . . . . . " In the light of the above provisions of the Act and the notification, the first question that has to be answered in this case is, what is the date of starting production ? Admittedly, the petitioners purchased raw material on 1st March, 1985. They had been manufacturing goods manually, as they say, and the first sale was effected by the petitioners on 30th March, 1985. Power connection was, no doubt, received on 20th May, 1986. The petitioners' contention is that the date of getting the power connection should be taken as the date of starting production. We find it difficult to agree. No doubt, the definition says that as between the date of purchase of raw material and the date of installation of power connection, whichever is later shall be taken as "the date of starting production", but the words "date of installation of power connection" are followed by the words "where needed". In our opinion, whether power connection is needed or not is a question of fact. In the present case, it appears from the facts stated in the writ petition and petitioners' own averments in several applications referred to in the counter-affidavit filed by the Sales Tax Officer that the power connection was not needed for producing the goods. It may have been needed for better or speedier production, but it cannot be said that without power the unit could not run. In fact, the petitioners had been manufacturing goods manually and effecting sale from March, 1985, which shows that the petitioners could carry on production without a power connection. In this connection, it is significant to notice that it is not the case of the petitioners, either in the writ petition or in the rejoinder-affidavits filed by them, that the production of goods by them from March, 1985 to May, 1986, was a trial production. Indeed, such a plea would be ridiculous. In the circumstances of the present case, we find that the date of starting production in the petitioners' unit is 1st March, 1985 and in view of sub-section (1) of section 4-A, the date of the first sale, i. e. , 30th March, 1985, should be taken as the date of commencement of the period of exemption, the same falling within six months of the date of starting production. It is well to remember that this Court while considering a writ petition in the nature of certiorari, does not sit in appeal over the judgment of the authorities. In Syed Yakoob v. K. S. Radhakrishnan AIR 1964 SC 477, it was observed : ". . . . . In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. " Of course, an error of law, which is apparent on the face of record, is a ground of attack in such a case besides jurisdictional errors. In our opinion, the finding of the Divisional Level Committee with respect to the date of commencement of exemption period does not suffer from any error of law, nor is the said finding vitiated on any of the grounds mentioned in the decision of the Supreme court. We may now take up the next contention urged by the counsel for the petitioners, viz. , even on 1st March, 1985/30th March, 1985, the capital investment in the unit was more than rupees three lacs and hence the petitioners are entitled to five-year period of exemption with effect from the said date. We have carefully gone through the review petition filed by the petitioners as well as the "clarification petition", but we do not find any specific averment to this effect. The petitioners' main contention was that 20th May, 1986, should be taken as the date of starting of production in view of the definition of the said expression in the Act and that period of exemption should be five years with effect from 20th May, 1986, inasmuch as their investment on the date of starting production was more than rupees three lacs. The petitioners did not aver specifically that even on 1st March, 1985/30th March, 1985, their investment was more than rupees three lacs. In such a situation, we cannot find fault with the authority for not recording a clear finding on this issue. In this connection, paragraphs 5 and 6 of the review petition filed by the petitioners quoted below, are self-explanatory : " 5. That in the absence of power and full plant and machinery, in case of finance there is no bar under any law that the unit cannot commence production by use of part of machinery and D. G. set and definitely to avoid industry being sick the petitioners started partial production by oven and hand operated tools, small machines and D. G. set and all these items are machinery but this date cannot be treated as date of starting production in view of mandatory provisions of section 4-A and various notifications of State Government. 6. That the petitioners had already made advances for machine on 4th February, 1985, as per annexure IV to this petition and full plant was received in June, 1985, as per copies of bills attached to this petition. All these machines are being used in manufacturing process. It is evident that the said new theory, factual in nature, cannot be entertained for the first time in this writ petition. For the above reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 11th January, 1989, is vacated. Writ petition dismissed. .;