INDER SEN ISRANI, J. - (1.) IN all these petitions a common question of law has been raised, therefore, they are decided by one single order.
(2.) PETITIONERS companies briefly stated, on the basis of various advertise-ments issued from time to time by State of Rajasthan/rllco/rfc and the assurances said to be given by Chief Minister and other higher authorities established new units at Jaipur. They wanted that new enterpreneurs should establish industries in Rajasthan. Such newly established industrial units were exempted for payment of tax on the sale of goods manufactured by them within the State as per Sales Tax Incentive Scheme for Industries, 1987 (for brevity Incentive Ssheme' ). The annexures referred to are as in writ petition No. 6083/90. The State Level Committee vide its decision dated March 24, 90 (Anx. VII) decided that units which have established their industries in a rented accomodation will not be entitled to the benefits given to them under the Incentive Scheme. Hence, these petitions. It is submitted by Shri V. K. Singhal & Shri S. M. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners that on the basis of decision Anx. VII, the District Level Committee has issued order dated June 2, 90 (Anx. VIII) and disallowed the benefits to the petitioners. It is submitted that no where in the Incentive Scheme, it is required that the industrial unit should be established in its own building nor it is necessary to make any investment in land and building. It is further submitted that the various industrial units of the petitioners have been established in industrial area in the industrial plots of RIICO. Therefore, Tri Party Agreement Anx. II dated July 6, 1988 has been executed, in which, RIICO is also a party. As per rules of RIICO the persons to whom the plot is allotted by RIICO cannot let it out to any person except with permission of RIICO. Infact by establishing these industrial units in the industrial plots of RIICO, the un-utilised spaces has been used and the petitioners have been saved from construction of shade etc. It is also submitted that vide Anx. I which is a pamphlet issued by RIICO inviting enterpreneurs to establish new industrial units, no such condition has been mentioned prohibiting the establish-ment of units in rented premises. All the units are registered with the Commer-cial Taxation Department (Anx. III) and also in District Industry, Centre (Anx. IV ). An application dated Sept. 22, 1988 (Anx. V) was made for grant of eligibility certificate which was rejected by District Level Committee vide Anx. VIII. It is submitted that earlier benefits of the Incentive Scheme have been given to several industries which had been established in rented premises, the names of which have been mentioned in para 14 of the petition. It is also pointed out that since no such condition is mentioned in the Incentive Scheme, the respondents cannot refuse the benefits on extreneous consideration. It is also submitted that the decision of State Level Committee (Anx. VII) is arbitrary and against conditions laid down in the Incentive Scheme. No reason whatsoever has been stated in Anx. VIII, which shows that this is a non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is submitted by Shri Bapna, learned counsel that State Level Commi-ttee is authorised to take any decision which deems it fit in the interest of public policy. It is pointed out that this committee consists of high officials from vario-us departments who have taken this decision after carefully considering the mat-ter. It is pointed out that as per note 2 in clause (2) the State Level Committee has also to act as monitoring committee to review the work done by the District Level Committee. It is submitted that the matter was reviewed keeping in view the provisions of sub - clause (e) of Clause 4 of the Incentive Scheme, which lays down that the Incentive shall be subject to the condition that the beneficiary industrial unit after having availed the benefits of the incentive scheme shall con-tinue its production atleast for next 5 years, not below the level of the average production for the preceding 5 years. Therefore, it was thought that such indus-trial units which were established in rented premises may close down after 5 years and go away from Rajasthan causing loss of revenue to the department. There-fore, the order Anx. VII cannot be termed to be arbitrary, but has been made with a view to fill - up a lacuna as explained above. It is admitted by learned counsel that earlier the industries established in rented premises were allowed the benefits, but after the decision was taken on March 24, 90 this benefit has been denied to such industries. Therefore, the appellants of the petitioners were rejec-ted on this ground. I have heard both the parties and gone through the documents on record. All the petitioners established their new industrial units in response to the incentive scheme which was advertised by various agencies of the State of Rajasthan and they have made substantial investment in their industries. 1 have carefully gone through the incentive scheme and do not find any such condition laying down the necessity of establishing new industrial units in its own premises and not rented premises. The State Level Committee in its decision in the meet-ing held on March 24, 90 has taken a two line decision that " regarding units, which have established their industries in a rented accomodation, it was decided that no benefit be given to them under the schemes. " This is a non - speaking order, in which, no reasons whatsoever have been given by it for coming to the conclusion. The apprehension of the learned counsel that industries established in rented accomodation may close down the industries after 5 years causing loss to the department as no basis since no such example could be pointed out on behalf of the respondents. Even this purported reason has not been mentioned in the decision taken in the meeting of the State Level Commitiee. It is settled law that when decisions are taken under a particular statute/ scheme/ rules, the same shall be taken only in accordance with the provisions and no extreneous 1 consideration will be considered for taking such decisions. Since in the incentive scheme there is no such condition/ requirements, the State Level Committee has taken this decision on the basis of extreneous considerations, which it was not entitle to do. I am fortified my opinion by a decision of Division Bench of this Court in M/s Shrirarn Oil Extraction Ltd. vs. State (l ). It may also be pointed out that when a law/ scheme provides for tax concessions with a view to encourage no activity, it is desirable that liberal construction should be made regarding such provisions. In Commissioner of Income- tax, Amritsar, vs. Strawboard Manufacturing Co. Ltd. , the Apex Court held that, "it is necessary to remember that when a provision is made in the context of a law providing for concessional rates of for the purpose of encouraging an industrial activity, a liberal construction should be put upon the language of the statute. " Considered from any angle the decision of the State Level Committee dated March 24, 90 and District Level Committee are not in accordance with the provisions of the incentive Scheme.
(3.) IN the result the decision of the State Level Committee dated March 24, 90 (Anx. VII) and the orders issued by the District Level Committee denying the benefits of incentive scheme to the petitioners- industries and the notice Anx-7 issued in petition No. 1400/91, since they are running in rented premises/ accomodation are, therefore, quashed and se aside. The writ petitions are allowed with no order as to costs. .;