Sales tax exemption eligibility depends on first fixed capital investment, not an unstated production deadline under the scheme.

Eligibility under the sales tax exemption scheme turned on the date of first fixed capital investment, because the notification and amendment defined a unit as "set up" when such investment began and did not impose any unstated requirement that commercial production must start by 30 November 1994. The later commencement of production in 1995 did not defeat exemption, since the scheme provided a seven-year benefit period from commercial production and the authority could not read in a restrictive condition absent from the text. The availability of a revisional remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction where the issue was recurring and judicial interpretation would avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The refusal to issue the exemption form was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a small-scale industrial unit that made its first fixed capital investment after 1 December 1989 but commenced commercial production later in 1995 was entitled to exemption benefits under the sales tax exemption notification read with the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1989; (ii) whether the existence of a revisional remedy barred the writ petition.

Issue (i): whether a small-scale industrial unit that made its first fixed capital investment after 1 December 1989 but commenced commercial production later in 1995 was entitled to exemption benefits under the sales tax exemption notification read with the Industrial Policy Resolution, 1989.

Analysis: The exemption notification allowed benefit to a unit set up on or after 1 December 1989 and starting commercial production thereafter, and an amendment explained "set up" to mean starting fixed capital investment. On that plain language, the relevant date was the date of first fixed capital investment, not an outer limit requiring commercial production to begin by 30 November 1994. The notification also provided that exemption would run for seven years from the date of commercial production, which showed that commencement of production after 1 December 1989 remained sufficient if the unit had been set up within the notified period. The revenue could not import a restrictive condition not found in the text, and the principle against supplying a casus omissus applied.

Conclusion: The unit was entitled to the exemption, and refusal to issue the prescribed form was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): whether the existence of a revisional remedy barred the writ petition.

Analysis: The dispute involved a recurring question affecting several similar cases, and judicial interpretation would avoid multiplicity of litigation. In those circumstances, the availability of an alternative statutory remedy was not treated as a bar to exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding the alternative remedy.

Final Conclusion: The refusal to grant the exemption form was set aside and the petitioner was held entitled to the benefit under the notified sales tax exemption scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification uses plain language defining eligibility by the date of setting up and commencement of commercial production thereafter, the authority cannot read into it an unstated temporal restriction, and a statutory notification must be construed according to its text without supplying omissions.

---