Bhavadasan, J.

1. As common issues arise for consideration and since the parties are also same, these writ appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The question raised for consideration in all these writ appeals is whether the refusal to grant exemption from payment of sales tax to the petitioners' unit for various periods, is justified in law.

2A. WA No.991/03 arises from the judgment in OP No.32947/00, WA No.1316/03 arises from OP No.32807/00 and WA No.1561/03 from OP No.23472/01. Since the facts of the three original petitions are almost identical, for the purpose of these writ appeals, the facts as narrated in OP No.32947/00 are being referred to in this judgment.

3. According to the petitioner, his unit is run by a company incorporated under the Companies Act. It produces steel ingots and iron rods. It is a medium scale industrial unit. The unit was registered on 06.09.1991 as per Ext.P1 certificate. According to the petitioner, the motivation and incentive for setting up the unit was a notification issued by the State Government, offering tax exemption as per Ext.P2. The notification has been issued under Section 10 of the KGST Act and it is a statutory notification. As per Ext.P2, the exemption is made available to various units for a period of seven years. It was acting on Ext.P2 that various units like the petitioner's unit were set up. The benefit under Ext.P2 notification can be taken aid of only from the date of commencement of production. The only restriction imposed was that the aggregate of the exemption contemplated under Clause 4 of Ext.P2 shall not exceed 100% of the capital investment of the unit. The petitioner's unit commenced production on 31.03.1995. Going by Clause 11 of Ext.P2, his unit is entitled to exemption. Subsequent to 31.03.1995, an additional capital investment was made by the petitioner. As on 31.03.1996, the total capital investment of the petitioner's unit was 3,96,62,211.62. Since the petitioner's unit satisfied all the necessary conditions for exemption as envisaged under Ext.P2, his unit got tax exemption for a period of 7 years from 31.03.1995 to 30.03.2002.

4. Initially, the petitioner's unit started production with a high tension capacity of 1500 KVA. Subsequent to the commencement of production and additional capital investments made, for making the unit more efficient and productive, the petitioner needed more power. After commencement of the production on 31.03.1995, the petitioner made an application for exemption from payment of sales tax before the Director of Industries and Commerce. The said authority has to issue an eligibility certificate and that was issued on 20.06.1997. By proceedings dated 19.12.1997, a certificate of exemption was issued to the petitioner, finding that the petitioner's unit is eligible for sales tax exemption to the tune of Rs.2,65,70,965/- for a period of seven years form 31.03.1995 to 30.03.2002. A copy of the said proceedings is produced and marked as Ext.P3. Even while the initial application was pending, the petitioner had invested heavily, i.e., nearly to the tune of five crores in the industry, resulting in additional contract load of 4500 KVA. Claiming exemption for the additional investment, Ext.P4 application was made by the petitioner. It had to be routed through the Director of Industries and Commerce. However, without any justification, Ext.P4 application was rejected by order dated 27.05.1998 on the ground that the petitioner's unit is a power incentive unit having a load of more than 2500 KVA and therefore, it is not entitled to tax exemption. The said order was produced as Ext.P5. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing OP No.20154/98. The learned Government Pleader submitted that a mistake had been committed by the authority and on that basis, the OP was disposed of directing the respondents therein to forward the application for exemption to the State Level Committee for consideratio