Incentive scheme implementation cannot override Government Orders; claim for sales tax loan must be reassessed under the original regime.

A State Level Committee implementing an incentive scheme could not reduce or supersede incentive limits fixed by Government Orders issued by the competent authority. The committee had only an /implementation role, and no valid later Government Order cancelling or modifying the original orders was shown. In the absence of supersession, the Government remained bound by the existing incentive regime, and the petitioner's entitlement to an interest-free sales tax loan had to be examined under those original orders. The petitioner was therefore entitled to reconsideration of its claim on that basis, and the committee's reduction could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State Level Committee could reduce or supersede the incentive limits fixed by Government Orders, and whether the petitioner was entitled to reconsideration of its claim for interest-free sales tax loan on the basis of the existing Government Orders.

Analysis: The incentive scheme was created by Government Orders issued by the competent authority, while the State Level Committee functioned only as an enforcing body. A committee constituted for implementation could not alter, amend, or supersede the Government Orders on its own. No valid subsequent governmental order cancelling or modifying the earlier Orders was shown. In the absence of such supersession, the Government remained bound by the original incentive regime, and the petitioner's claim had to be examined under those Orders.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to have its case reconsidered on the basis of the original Government Orders, and the reduction made by the State Level Committee could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the respondents were directed to reassess the petitioner's entitlement to the sales tax loan under the governing incentive orders.

---