B. M. LAL, J. - (1.) By this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner seeks an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned order dated January 19, 1989 (annexure 9 to the writ petition) passed by the Divisional Level Committee, Meerut, the respondent No. 2, whereby petitioner has been granted benefit of eligibility certificate for a period of 3 years only instead of 5 years, under section 4-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The only point involved in this case is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of eligibility certificate for a period of 3 years or 5 years. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. This legal position is not disputed that the State Government of U. P. vide Notification No. ST-II-604/x-9 (208)/1981-U. P. Act 15/48 - Order-85 dated January 29, 1985 published in U. P. Gazette, Extraordinary, dated January 29, 1985, notified that the Governor is pleased to declare that, in respect of any goods manufactured in an industrial unit, which is a new unit as defined in the aforesaid Act of 1948 established in the areas mentioned in column 2 of the Table appended in the said notification, the date of starting production whereof falls on or after the first day of October, 1982, but not later than thirty-first day of March, 1990, no tax under the Act shall be payable by the manufacturer thereof on the turnover of sales of such goods for the period specified in column 3 against each, which shall be reckoned from 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 subject to the condition that the said industrial unit has not discontinued production of such goods for a period exceeding six months at a stretch in any assessment year. The Table referred above and quoted in the aforesaid notification shows that the units located in the districts shown at serial No. 3 which includes district Saharanpur where the unit in question is located, the sales tax exemption shall be granted for three years in case of unit with capital investment not exceeding 3 lakh rupees and for a period of five years in case of units with capital investment exceeding 3 lakh rupees. In the instant case petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office and factory situated at Saharanpur. The petitioner's unit is registered under both, the U. P. and Central Sales Tax Acts and it carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of bread. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has invested a sum of Rs. 1,12,931. 60 towards purchase of land and construction of building and Rs. 7,35,042. 44 towards new machineries purchased and installed in the unit. Thus, capital investment of petitioner exceeds Rs. 3,00,000 which is the main requirement for grant of exemption for a period of 5 years. Therefore, main contention of petitioner's counsel is that since the capital investment of the unit in question exceeds Rs. 3,00,000 hence he is entitled to exemption for a period of five years but the authorities have granted exemption only for a period of 3 years. Learned counsel representing the respondents contended that in the instant case the date of first sale is June 1, 1985 and the capital investment made by the petitioner in the instant case is less than Rs. 3,00,000 till June 1, 1985, therefore, petitioner is entitled to the exemption only for a period of 3 years. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A bare perusal of annexure 7 to the writ petition shows that date of production is June 1, 1985 and the Divisional Level Committee found capital investment of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 2,33,800 till June 1, 1985. This amount does not include the amount of advance invested by the petitioner towards purchase of machineries. A perusal of impugned order (annexure 9) shows that the amount of advance to the turn of Rs. 96,290 has not been included in the capital investment of petitioner simply for the reason that the machineries for the purchase of which advance was paid were not used till the date of production. In the opinion of this Court the reason for not including the amount of advance in the capital investment does not appear to be satisfactory. In the considered opinion of this Court total investment made before the date of first sale be included in the capital investment. In a similar case in Parsonal Babulal v. State of U. P. [1988] 69 STC 363; 1988 UPTC 169 (vide para 7) (page 370 of STC) where the date of first sale was March 9, 1984 and the payment for purchase of motors was received by the suppliers by March 9, 1984 and the motors were to be delivered on March 10, 1984, this Court held that the investment made on the purchase of motors be included in the capital investment and thus by March 9, 1984, petitioner's investment was more than Rs. 3,00,000. In the instant case admittedly petitioner's capital investment is Rs. 2,33,800 till the date of first sale, i. e. , June 1, 1985. Petitioner has filed receipts of advances vide annexure 7 to the writ petition and the receipt filed at pages 48 and 49 of the paper book show that petitioner paid an advance of Rs. 25,000 on April 26, 1985 and Rs. 50,000 on January 30, 1985 and Rs. 10,000 on January 28, 1985. All these advances are invested before June 1, 1985 and thus, if these amounts or advances are included in the capital investment, it exceeds to Rs. 3,00,000. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the instant case the amount of advance invested before the date of production is liable to be included in the capital investment of petitioner and thus, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of eligibility certificate of tax exemption for a period of 5 years instead of 3 years from the date of first sale, i. e. , June 1, 1985 as his capital investment including the advance paid before June 1, 1985 exceeds to Rs. 3,00,000. In the result petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated January 19, 1989 passed by the respondent No. 2 (contained in annexure 9 to the writ petition) is quashed. The respondent No. 2 is directed to pass appropriate orders accordingly for granting eligibility certificate in consonance with the foregoing conclusions arrived at by this Court within a reasonable time preferably within a month from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .;