- (1.) THE short question for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner-company was rightly denied exemption under section 4-A of the U. P. Trade Tax Act simply on the ground that one of the directors of the petitioner-company owned the existing unit, namely, M/s. Agra Oil and General Industries, Naraich, Hathras Road, Agra, which is engaged in the manufacture of oil. Admitted facts are that the existing unit - M/s. Agra Oil and General Industries, Naraich, Hathras Road, Agra, engaged in the manufacture of oil, is a proprietary concern of Sri Shanti Swarup Goel, who is one of the directors in the petitioner-company, namely, M/s. Kumar Oil Mills Private Limited. Both the existing unit and the petitioner-company carry on the same business, i. e. , manufacture of oil and are situate adjacent to each other. THE benefit of exemption under section 4-A was denied to the petitioner-company on the ground that Sri Shanti Swarup Goel, proprietor of the existing unit, happened to be one of the directors in the petitioner-company. Our attention has been drawn to the Explanation to section 4-A, which was inserted in section 4-A by Act No. 28 of 1991 with effect from October 12, 1983. THE said Explanation is reproduced in paragraph 22 of the writ petition and for clarity's sake the same is reproduced hereunder : " (ii) On or adjacent to the site of an existing factory or workshop manufacturing any other goods, but does not include - (i) any factory or workshop manufacturing the same goods established by a person on or adjacent to the site of an existing factory or workshop wherein such person has interest as proprietor or a partner or agent or promoter or holding company or subsidiary company, so however, that where the date of starting production of such factory or workshop falls before January 19, 1985, this clause shall be construed as if the words 'or adjacent to' were omitted, or. " From the perusal of the Explanation, it clearly appears that if a new unit manufacturing same goods is established by a person on the site adjacent to an existing factory, wherein such person has interest in the existing unit, then the new unit will not be eligible to get exemption. THE petitioner-company is a separate juristic person. Unless it is established that the petitioner-company had interest in the existing unit, in our opinion, the former will not be disentitled to get exemption under section 4-A. In paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit it is averred that ". . . . . Sri Shanti Swarup Goyel, director of the petitioner-company has interest in an existing old unit manufacturing the same goods and in view of provisions of section 4-A of the Act, as amended by the U. P. Act No. 28 of 1991, the petitioner is not entitled to exemption". Simply because one of the directors of the petitioner-company happened to be the proprietor of the existing unit, can the petitioner-company be denied exemption envisaged by section 4-A ? In view of the Explanation added by the U. P. Act No. 28 of 1991 to section 4-A unless it is established that the petitioner-company as such has interest in the existing unit, exemption under section 4-A cannot be denied to the petitioner-unit. If one of the directors of the petitioner-company owns the existing unit, it cannot be said that the petitioner-company had interest in the existing unit. Sri Shanti Swarup Goel, one of the directors of the petitioner-company, owned the existing unit and, therefore, true factual position is that only the said director has interest in the existing unit and not the petitioner-company as such. THE words "such person" occurring in the exclusory clause (i) clearly indicates that such person means the owner of the new unit and if a new unit has interest in the existing unit, then alone the former will be disentitled to exemption. In the instant case, not the petitioner-company (new unit) has interest in the existing unit, but only one of the directors of the petitioner-company has interest in the existing unit, since the existing unit is owned by the said director. Since the petitioner-company which owns the new unit has no interest in the existing unit, as such, respondent No. 2 was in error in denying the benefit of exemption to the petitioner-company. Underlying idea is that the same person, who owns the new unit and the existing unit, should not be given the benefit of exemption under section 4-A again and again, but if a new unit as such has no interest in the existing unit, then the new unit will not be denied exemption under section 4-A of the Act. No doubt, the veil of a corporate body can be lifted. But no case has been put by the respondents that the director of the petitioner-company, who owned the existing unit, controlled the petitioner-company himself and that the petitioner-company is nothing but one-man show of the said director. For the reasons, the petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order dated December 30, 1992 (annexure "6" to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2 is quashed. THE respondents are directed to issue the eligibility certificate to the petitioner in accordance with law within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before them by the petitioner. Petition allowed. .;