1. 1. Heard learned counsels.

2. The Tax Board by the impugned order dated 1.2.2006 upheld to decision of the State Level Screening Committee Annex.2 dated 17.11.2004 whereby the said State Level Screening Committee (SLSC for short) acting under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1998 found that since the assessee industrial unit manufacturing ready made garments had shifted its some part of plant and machinery from Tonk to Bhilwara unit, another unit of the same company, the benefit given to the assessee industrial unit under such incentive scheme was to be reduced to the extent of plant and machinery shifted i.e. Rs. 84.31 lacs. The assessee took the matter further before the Tax Board against the decision of the SLSC and Tax Board vide its impugned order dated 1.2.2006 approved the decision of the SLSC and being aggrieved of the same, the assessee has approached this Court under Section 86 of the RST Act, 1994 raising the question of law as to whether the SLSC was justified in reducing the quantum of eligible investment for grant of benefit under the aforesaid incentive scheme to that extent.

3. Learned counsel for the assessee Mr. Ramit Mehta has urged that mere shifting of part of the plant and machinery from Tonk to Bhilwara where both the units of the petitioner-assessee manufacture same product i.e. ready made garment was not prohibited either under the aforesaid Incentive Scheme,. 1998 or under the provisions of RST Act, 1994. He submits that the fixed capital investment made within the State of Rajasthan continued to remain within the State of Rajasthan and for business expediency, if another unit requires such plant and machinery and it was lying as idle capacity at Tonk, there was no reason why the assessee should be prohibited from shifting its part of plant and machinery from Tonk to Bhilwara. He submits that incentive scheme does not envisage eligible fixed capital investment in any particular area of the State of Rajasthan nor there is any list of prohibited areas where investment so made would be ineligible for benefit under the said incentive scheme. He, therefore, submits that the SLSC was not justified in directing reduction of the said quantum of eligible investment to be shifted from Tonk to Bhilwara on account of aforesaid business necessity.

4. On the side opposite Mr. Rishab Sancheti for Mr. V.K. Mathur appearing for the revenue submits that since the assessee was given benefit of incentive scheme for setting up of an industrial unit at a particular place and shifting a part of plant and machinery required approval of the competent Screening Committee, therefore, the Screening Committee cannot be faulted in imposing the said condition while granting permission to shift the said part of plant and machinery that the corresponding amount would be reduced from the quantum of benefit available to the petitioner unit.

5. Having heard learned counsels and upon perusal of the impugned orders and provisions of the Incentive Scheme, this Court finds considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner assessee.

6. A perusal of the definition of "new industrial unit" in clause 2(k) of the Incentive Scheme of 1998 which is reproduced hereunder and comparing the same definition in the earlier schemes of 1987 and 1989 which are also reproduced hereunder for ready and comparative reference, would reveal that new Scheme of 1998 appears to have given more broad based definition and to achieve the purpose of encouraging investment within the State of Rajasthan earlier an industrial unit established by transferring or shifting or dismantling an existing industry was not covered by the definition of "new industrial unit" as defined in Incentive Scheme, 1987 and 1989 but now in the 1998 scheme includes a unit set up on the site of existing industrial unit by making separate capital investment is also as covered by the definition of "new industrial unit". The intention of the State