# MIS. PINE CHEMICALS LTD. AND ORS. ETC. ETC v. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND ORS. ETC. ETC - **Citation:** [1992] 1 S.C.R. 179 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1992-01-16 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 2309 & A 2310 of 1989 - **Bench:** S. Ranganathan, V. Ramaswami, N.D. Ojha - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mis-pine-chemicals-ltd-and-ors-etc-etc-v-the-assessing-authority-and-ors-etc-etc-11442 - **Pages:** 41 ## Headnote B Interpretation of Statutes----heeming provisio,,__.construction (Section 5, Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962). Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962--Section 5Granting tax exemption--l'rocedure-Whether Government Orders 159 and C 414 deemed to be exemption notification-Tax exemptio!>-Kinds of-- Person claims exemptiol>-Duty of Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tox Act, 1962--Section 5-Tax exemption by Govt. Orders 159 and 4l~"Will be granted exemption" and "will be exempted"-Meaning-Whether same. D . Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962--Section 5Government Order 159 dated 26.3.1971, whether a follow up action of Government to its notification in SRO 214 dated 3.6.1971 issued under section 23 of the Jammu and Kashmir Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1962. Claim ~f Period of exemption for JO years on the ground of promissory estoppel-Reference to JO years in Finance Minister's speech and the Brochure dated 7.9.1978-Whether benefit under Govt. Orders 159 and 414 continues for 10 years. E Exemption-hether Govt. Orders 159 and 414 superseded by SRO 195 F dated 31.3.1978-Taxability of Vanaspati and edible oils under notification SRO 448 da!ed 22.10.1982. Section 4(1)--Scheme of-Levy of single point taxation-Tax examption under Govt. Orders 159 and 414 whether covers entire series of sales G of the goods manufactured-Applicability of notification SRO 448. Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 : Sections 6(1), 6(1-A), 15,8 (2-A}-Tax liability under-Inter State sale-When takes place-Imposition of tax on sale of declared goods by H 179 180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 1 S. C.R. A State under State Law in inter state sale-CST if paid. to be reimbursed - Over-riding effect of section 8(2-A}-Scope of-Applicability of Section 6(1-A). Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962 : B Section 5----Kinds of-- Person claims exemptiol>-Duty of Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tox Act, 1962--Section 5-Tax exemption by Govt. Orders 159 and 4l~"Will be granted exemption" and "will be exempted"-Meaning-Whether same. D . Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962--Section 5Government Order 159 dated 26.3.1971, whether a follow up action of Government to its notification in SRO 214 dated 3.6.1971 issued under section 23 of the Jammu and Kashmir Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1962. Claim ~f Period of exemption for JO years on the ground of promissory estoppel-Reference to JO years in Finance Minister's speech and the Brochure dated 7.9.1978-Whether benefit under Govt. Orders 159 and 414 continues for 10 years. E Exemption-hether Govt. Orders 159 and 414 superseded by SRO 195 F dated 31.3.1978-Taxability of Vanaspati and edible oils under notification SRO 448 da!ed 22.10.1982. Section 4(1)--Scheme of-Levy of single point taxation-Tax examption under Govt. Orders 159 and 414 whether covers entire series of sales G of the goods manufactured-Applicability of notification SRO 448. Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 : Sections 6(1), 6(1-A), 15,8 (2-A}-Tax liability under-Inter State sale-When takes place-Imposition of tax on sale of declared goods by H 179 180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 1 S. C.R. A State under State Law in inter state sale-CST if paid. to be reimbursed - Over-riding effect of section 8(2-A}-Scope of-Applicability of Section 6(1-A). Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962 : B Section 5---.. industries in Jammu & Kashmir and certian other communications to the parties, it is to be understood that the Government orders 159 and 414 were treated as exemption orders satisfy all the requirements of the ·; provisions of section 5 of the local Act. [195B-C, 194E] D 2.5 Even as an order of exemption the appellant will have to show E that he had set up the industry in conformity with the intent of 1971 order and entitled in terms thereof to the exemption in respect of the goods manufactured by him. But that Is not to say that after he establishes those facts the Government will have to make a separate order of exemption in relation to him. [201C-D] 2.6 There Is no· prescribed form for granting exemption under section 5 of the Jammu & Kashmir General Sales Tax Act. There is also no prohibition against reference to any other matter or matters in exemption orders under section 5 of the General Sales Tax Act. If the incentives related also to other benefits or rights merely because they F are included in the same Government Order does not make it any the less an exemption order so far as the exemption related to payment of sales tax. [202C-D] 2.7 The High Court was in error in thinking that the exemption G order should be specific in favour of the appellant. The exemption as can be seen from the provisions of section 5 of the Jammu & Kashmir General Sales Tax Act could be in respect of any class of dealers or any goods or class or description of goods. There could be an exemption to an individual also but the power of exemption is not restricted to such cases alone. It may refer to transactions of sale of a particular type of H goods or class or description of goods or in respect of any class or PINE CHEMICALS v. ASSESSING AUTHORITY 185 dealers or a combination or both. [2018) 3.1 'Will be granted exemption' has the same meaning as 'will be exempted' and does not in any way show that it requires a further follow up action. [201G-H] A 3.2 The exemption is with reference to an industry which is to be B established subsequent to the Government order. Therefore in that sense both expressions mean the same. [202AJ 4. The notification issued on the 3rd or June 1971 in SRO ·214 under section 23 of the Jammu & Kashmir Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1962, amending the Immovable Property Tax Rules, 1962 by · C inserting Rule 20-A was subsequent to GO 159 Ind. dated 26.3.1971. It was published on 25.3.1971 in the Government Gazette under section 23(1) for information or all persons likely to be affected thereby and any objection or suggestion which may be received in the Finance Department from any person with respect to the said draft before the said date will be considered by the Government. It is by reason of the fact that D this draft rule has been published calling for objection the GO 159 Ind. itself stated that the grant or immovable property tax exemption would be available "as admissible under the Urban Immovable Property Taxation Rules". Thus on the day when the Government Order was made there was already the draft amendment rules, and, therefore, it could not be stated that the amendment was a follow up action in E pursuance of the Government order. The Government order refers If! the draft and says as per the amendment they will be entitled to the exemption. [202E-203B] 5.1 The only reference to IO years was in the Finance Minister's speech and in the Brochure dated September 1978. The Brochure only F lists the concessions and incentives available generally. It does not refer to any Government decision or Cabinet decision or any order or the Government. [203G-HJ 5.2 The Finance Minister's statement made in March 1978 only G refers to a proposal to continue the grant or exemption from payment or sales tax for a period of IO years. This statement also is not unambiguous. It may mean that the benefits under the Government Orders 159 and 414 may be continued for another 10 years without withdrawing the same. This is merely a b~dget proposal which could H 186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] l S. C.R. A give rise to no right to the appellants. As no decision order or notification is produced extending the period of exemption in relation to sales tax it is not possible to consider the claim of the appellants for exemption for 10 years on the ground of promissory estoppel. [204 B·C] B 6.1. The SRO No. 195 dated 31.3.1978 did not and could not supersede the exemption granted under the Government orders 159, 414. [205D] 6.2. When it stated in the amending notification SRO 448 dated 22nd October, 1982 that vanaspati and edible oils are taxable at the C point specified therein it only means that those vanaspati and edible oils which are not exempted are taxable at the points specified in the Schedule. The Government order gave exemption. only for five years .from the date of commencement of the industry and those industries who had been manufacturing for more than that period and also those industries who were not entitled to the benefit of the said Government D order would be liable to pay sales tax on the vanaspati manufactured by them and the said goods were liable to tax at the point specified in the Schedule. [205F-GJ 7.1 In the scheme of levy of single point taxation, the Government could fix any point in the series of sales for the Government have fixed E the sale by the dealer, that jf the second sale, as the taxable point no exception can be taken. In.)liat sense no question of vires on the ground of lack of power would arise. [205H-206A] 7.2 Under section 4(1) of Jammu & Kashmir General Sales Tax Act the goods are taxable only once, that is it could be taxed only at one .4l1 F point of sale. The government orders 159 and 414 are exemption orders • and exempt the sale by appellants of their manufactured products. The exemption would not arise unless the goods are taxable at the point of -< their sale. Thus the effect of exempting their sale is that the said goods manufactured by them could not be taxed at the second or subsequent sales also as that would offend section 4(1) which provides for single G point levy. In cases where there are no exemption orders and the State fixed the second or subsequnt sale as point of taxation the first or prior or subsequent sales are not exempted sales but are not taxable sales. Therefore SRO 448 fixing he sale of vanaspati ghee by a dealer would not be applicable to vamispati ghee manufactured by the appellants H which are exempt under the Government orders. [2068-D) ' PINE CHEMICALS v. ASSESSING AUTHORITY 187 7.3. The goods manufactured by the Appellants are exempt under A Government Orders 159 and 414 and that exemption covers entire series of sales of that very goods. [206D] 8.1 Under section 6(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 every dealer who sells goods in the course of inter-state trade or commerce shall be liable to pay tax under that Act. A sale of goods shall be deemed.· B to take place in the course of inter-state trade or commerce if the sale occasions the movement of goods from one state to another or if effected by a transfer of documents of title to the goods during their movement from one State to another. [207D-E] 8.2. In view of the provisions of Section 15 the State Law can C impose tax on sale of declared goods only at a rate not exceeding four per cent of the sale price and such tax also shall not be levied at more than one stage. If the tax has been levied under the State Law on declared goods and such goods are sold in the course of inter-state trade and tax has been paid under the Central Sales Tax the Law levied under the State law shall be reimbursed to the person making such sale in the D course of inter-state trade. [208C-EJ 8.3. Section 8(2-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act does not have any over-riding effect on the scheme of taxation relating to inter-State sale of declared goods. There is also scope for the applicability of section 6(1-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act when the inter-state sale takes E place when the goods are in transit and is effected by transfer of documents of title to the goods during their movement from one State to another. [209B-C] 8.4. Only certain cases which would have been covered by section 6(1-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act have been carved out for the F purpose of exemption subject to the applicability of section 8(2-A) of ihe Central Sales Tax Act. Section 6(1-A) of the Central Sales Tax Act has not become otiose by reason of inclusion of that section in the nonobstante clause in section 8(2-A). Both provisions, therefore, operate and they should not be read so as to nullify the effect of one another. G [209C-EJ 9. The facts which the dealer has to prove to get the benefit of the Government orders are intended only to identify the dealer and the goods in respect of which the exemption is sought and they are not conditions or specifications of circumstances relating to the turnover sought H 188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) I S. C.R. A to be exempted from payment of tax within the meaning of those provisions. The specified circumstances and the specified conditions referred to in the explanation should relate to the transaction of sale of the commodity and not identification of the dealer or the commodity in respect of which the exemption is claimed. The conditions relating to identity of the goods and the dealer are always there in every exemption B and that cannot be put as a condition of sale. [210D-F] 10.1. SRO SO/S2 was prospective in operation. The Government seems to have been following as a pattern that is in the case of incentives to industrie5 the exemption orders had taken the form of a Government order. Government orders 159 and 414 were also in pursuance of a , C Cabinet decision. SRO SO/S2 though a Government notification under the Business Rules it is issued by the Ministry concerned. In the circum· stances there is also a serious doubt whether the said incentives could have been superseded by the SRO SO/S2. [213H-214B] 10.2. In the case of a grant of exemption without specifying any D period for which the exemption is available the Government could withdraw the same at any time. The appellants acting on the representations of the Government had set up their industries. Therefore they are entitled to claim the benefit of the exemption for the entire period of five years calculated as per the terms of the Government orders, even if it were to be held that SRO SO/S2 superseded the earlier exemption E orders. [216D-E, 216G-217 A] 11. Since the assessment orders were regular assessment orders on the ground that their sales are taxable sales the question of applicability of Section SB of the local Act does not arise. That question arises in view of the finding that their sales turnover are exempt but still under section F SB of the Local Act, they are liable to refund any money collected "by way of tax". [217G-HJ Pournami Oil Mills & Ors. v. State of Kera/a & Anr., [19S6] Supp. SCC 728; Baku/ Oil Industries & Anr. v. State of Gujrat & Anr .. [19S7] G 1 SCR 1S5; Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Asstt), Dharwar & Ors. v. Dharmendra Trading Company and Ors .. [1988] 3 SCC 570; Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd.· & Anr. v. State of Haryana, 3S STC lOS; Industrial Cables India Ltd. v. Assessing Authority, [19S6] Supp. SCC 695; International Collon Corporation (P) Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer & Ors., 35 STC 1; referred to. H PINE CHEMICALS v. ASSESSING AUTHORITY [V. RAMASWAMI, J.] 189 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2309 & A 2310 of 1989 etc etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 23.9.1988 of the Jammu & Kashmir High Coon in Writ Petition No. 87/81 and C.M.P. No. 2519 of 1988. K. Parasaran, D.D. Thakur,. M.H. Beg, Raja Ram Agrawal, M.L. Verma, Prashant K. Goswami, Anil B. Divan, Pramod Kohli, P.H. Parekh, Hari Khanna, J.P.Pathak, Sandeep Thakral, S.M.Thakral, B.V.Desai, Ms. Vinita Ghorpade, E.C. Aggarwala, N.N. Bhatt, Dhiraj Singh and Ashok _,.. Mathur for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Coon was delivered by V. RAMASWAMI, J. Civil Appeal No.2309 of 1989 arises out of an order made by the High Coon of Jammu & Kashmir in Writ Petition No. B c 87 of 1981 dismissing the Writ Petition filed by M/s. Pine Chemicals Ltd., which is a public limited company manufacturing Rosin, Turpentine and D Rosin Derivatives and carrying on business at Bari Brahmana, Jammu Tawi. The appellants had prayed in the writ petition for quashing the order of assesment dated 20th January, 1981 made by the Assessing Authority, Incharge Sales Tax Circle, Jammu under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the year ending 30.6.1980 and the penalty order made on February 2, 1981 und.er Section IO of the Central Sales Tax Act in respect of the same E period. They had also prayed for a declaration that they are entitled to exemption from payment of tax under the Central Sales Tax Act and the Jammu & Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962, on the finished goods produced by them for a period of five years commencing from 8th November, 1979, when the Company went into commercial production. This main relief had been prayed for on the grounds that the appellants were F exempt from payment of sales tax in terms of the Government Orders No. 159 - Ind. dated 25.3.1971 as amended by Government Order No. 414-lnd. dated 25th August, 1971 read with section 8(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act Their further case was that the Government represented and announced a package of incentive for large and medium scale industries including grant G of exemption from sales tax both on the raw materials purchased by the industries and the scale of their finished products, that acting upon such representation and assurances, appellants set up their factory at Bari Brahmana on the land allotted by the State Industrial Development Corporation and that therefore the Government is estopped from charging sales tax on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The High Court was of the view that H 190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] ls. c. R. A the two Government orders referred to above were only declarations of an intention to exempt from payment of sales tax and that they are not exemption notifications under sections 5 of the General Sales Tax Act The High Court was also of the view that the appellants have failed to prove the necessary factual foundation for invoking the principle of promissory estoppel and that, therefore, they are not entitled to any relief under that B doctrine. In that view the writ Petition was dismissed. It may be mentioned that civil Appeal No. 23 JO of 1985 is against an order made in a Civil Misc. Petition No. 2519 of 1988 which was also dismissed on 23.9.1988 along with the writ petition.This miscellaneous petition was filed after the judgment in the writ petition was reserved for C permission to file reply affidavit on the ground that the assessment files produced at the time of hearing contained certain documents needing certain explanation by the appellants. Both on the ground that it was belated and on the ground that the judgment in the writ petition was delivered only relying on the material placed on record and therefore there was no need for giving an opportunity to the writ petitioners to file a reply statement, the D learned judges dismissed this miscellaneous petition also. Civil appeals 3140-50 of 1989 have been filed by M/s. K.C. Vanaspati, a firm of partnership manufacturing Vanaspati Ghee at Bari Brahmana, Jammu Tawi.. They filed writ petition 52 of 1982 praying to quash a sales tax assessment order dated 16.1.1982 assessing them to sales tax for the E period from 2nd September, 1981 till the end of the month under the Jammu & Kashmir General Sales Tax Act. They also prayed for a mandamus dircting the Government and the Assessing officer not to assess them to sales tax or recover any amount on account of sales tax from them for a perioc of five years from 2nd September, 1981 when their induslry started commercial production. This relief was prayed again on the ground that F Government Order 159-lnd. dated 26.3.1971 as amended by Government .~ Order 414-Ind. dated 25 .8.1971 ex err. pted the sales of their finished product of Vanaspati Ghee from sales tax and also on the ground that in any case -l the Government is estopped from collecting tax on the principle of promissory estoppel. When this writ petition was pending an assessment G order was made on 14.11.1984 for the assesment year ending 30th September, 1982 including the period 2nd September to 30th September, 1981 which was the subject matter of the earlier assessment order and which was questioned in writ petition No. 52 of 1982. The validity of this assessment order was the subject matter of writ petition No.822 of 1984 filed by the appellants. The relief prayed for and the grounds on which the relief prayed H for were almost identical as that in writ petition No. 52 of 1982 except that I ' ____. PINE CHEMICALS v. ASSESSING AUTHORITY [V. RAMASWAMI, J.] 191 on lhe question of promissory estoppel, more detailed facts were mentioned A in ·this writ petition. The respondents filed their counter affidavits contending that the said Government orders were not exemption orders under Section 5 of the General Sales Tax Act and that there is no factual foundation for the plea of promissory estoppel. Since we will be dealing with contentions in detail at the appropriate place we are not setting out contentions of the petitioners and the replies of the Government in the writ B petitions in detail. During the pendency of the writ petitions certain other Government orders came to be passed and certain assessment orders for the subsequent periods were also sought to be made and questioning these actions M/s. K.C. Vanaspati filed Writ petition No. 711 of 1987 for a writ of prohibition restraining lhe Assessment Officer and the Government from recovering any sales tax at any point of sale in the series of sales in respect C of Vanaspati Ghee manufactured by them for a period of IO years from 2nd September, 1981 when their factory went into commercial production and also for a declaration that SRO 448 dated 22nd October, 1982 issued by the Government of Jammu & Kashmir (which will be referred to later) was illegal and unconstitutional. They had also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to refund the sales tax· already recovered from them with D interest and damages. In this writ petition also they contended that Government Order No. 159-Ind. dated 26.3.1971 and Government Order 414-Ind. dated 25.8.i97! were exemption orders referable to section 5 of the General Sales Tax Act They have also referred elaborately to the representations, declarations and promises of the Government in support of the plea of promissory estoppel. The respondents had filed a counter affidavit refuting E these contentions of the appellants. The High Court dismissed all these three writ petitions by a common order dated 22nd February, 1989. Civil Appeals 3148-50 of 1989 have been filed against this common order. Civil Appeal No. 3151 of 1989 has been filed by M/s. Kashmir Vanaspati Ltd., against the judgement of the High Court in Writ Petition F No.5 of 1989 in which they had prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash certain notices issued to the appellants, their selling agents and the owner of ·the premises where they have their sale depots, issued under section 17 of the General Sales Tax Act and for a declaration that the Vanaspati Ghee manufactured by the appellants is exempt from payment of tax at all stages G upto January, 1992 i.e. for a period of IO years from lhe date from which they have started their commercial production. In this writ petition also the appellants had relied on Government Order 159-Ind. dated 26.3.1971 and Government Order No. 414-Ind. dated 25th August, 1971 as orders exempting their goods from sales tax under Section 5 of the General Sales TaX Act. They have also relied on certain statements of Government as commitments H 192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 1 S. C.R. A to continue the incentives and exemptions from sales tax for a period of 10 years on the principle of promissory estoppel. The respondents had filed their counter affidavit This writ petition was also dismissed on 17th March, 1989 almost on the same grounds as in the earlier two cases. The first common question that arises for consideration in all these B appeals therefore is whether Government Order No. 159-lnd. dated 26.3.1971 and the amending Government Order No. 414-Ind. dated 25.8.1971 are orders of exemption referable to section 5 of the General Sales Tax Act, 1962. The said Goverment Orders are extracted below : "GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR INDUSTRIES c AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT Sub: Grant of incentives to large and Medium Scale Indistries in the Jammu & Kashmir State Ref: Cabinet Decision No. JOI dated 26.3.1971 D Government Order no. 149-Ind. of 1971 dated 26.3.1971 Sanction is accorded to the grant of the following incentives and facilities to Large and Medium Scale Industries in the State of Jammu & Kashmir: E I. Land: As provided in Government Order No. 206-Ind. of 1968 dated 5.7.1968. However, such land ...... .include a reasonable amount of land for the establishment of residential colonies required to house the workers of Large and medium scale Industries and would be granted on the terms and conditions F defined in the Government Order No. 206-Ind.of 1968 dated 5.7.1968. 2. Grant of exemption from the State Sales Tax both on raw materials and finished products for a period of five years from G the date the unit goes into production. 3. Grant of exemption from levy of additional surcharge on Toll Tax for an initial period of five years from the date the unit goes into commercial production with respect to raw materials and finished goods. The question of grant of exemption from' this H levy for further periods would be reviewed thereafter in every ,...__ --1 PINE CHEMICALS v. ASSESSING AUTHORITY [V. RAMASWAMI, J.] 193 individual case and further grant of this concession would only A "" be considered in deserving individual cases. 4. Grant of exemption from the levy of Urban Immovable Property Tax on the lands and buildings belonging to such industries would be available as admissible under the Urban Immovable Property Taxation Rules. B By order of the Goverment of. Jammu and Kashmir. Sd/-G.R.Renzu, Secretary to Government" c This order was partially modified in G.O. 414 Ind. dated 25.8.1971 which read as follows: "GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT D Sub: Grant of incentives to the Large and Medium· Scale Industries in the Jammu & Kashmir State 1'' Ref: Director lndusb'ies and Commerce's leUer No. SSl-J/455/225152 dated 22-7-1971 E Government Order No. 414-Ind. ·of 1971 dated 25.8.1971 In partial modification of Government Order No. 159-Ind. of 1971 dated 26.3.1971, item 2 may be read as under: F -~· 2. Grant of exemption from the sales tax both on raw materials and finished products. )- The State Sales Tax paid by Large and Medium Scale Industries on the raw materials procured by them for the initial 5 years of G the production would be refunded to such industries. Similarly such industries will be granted exemption from the payment of • any state sales tax on their finished products for a period of five years from the date the unit goes into production. H ~· ' 194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) l S. C.R. A By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. Sd/- Secretary to Government". B It may be noled at this stage itself that the amending Order G.O. 414c D Ind. dated 25th August, 1971 was also published in the Government Gazette. Section 5 of the General Sales Tax Act,1962 empowers the State Government to grant exemption from taxation and that section reads as follows: "Exemption from taxation: The Government may subject to such iestrictions and conditions as may be prescribed, including conditions as to licence and licence fees, by order exempt in whole or in part from payment of tax any class of dealers or any goods or class or description of goods." The G,, ''Timent orders were made implementing the Cabinet decision No. 10.' · the same date. There is no ambiguity about the class of persons or de<.; :rs to whom the Governmeht orders apply, no ambiguity about the class or description of goods and the transactions of sale which are exempt from tax. It has been duly authenticated in terms of Section 45 E of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. It is well settled that if power to do an act or pass an order can be traced to an enabling statutory provision, then even if that provision is not specifically referred to, the act or order shall be deemed to have been done or made under the enabling provision. Thus the Government orders satisfy all the requirements of the provisions of Section 5 of the local Act. The section also does not talk of F any notification; it only talks of a Government order exempting in whole or in part from payment of tax. This is very insignificant, if contrasted with Section 4(1) and 4(5) of the local Act relating to the fixation of the taxable point refers to a notification by the Government The Act itself thus makes a distinction requiring a notification to be made for certain purposes and the G making of a Government order in respe(:t of certain other purposes. Moreover, since there is no form prescribed in this behalf if the particular order in effect is an exemption order, whether it takes the form of an order or notification makes no difference. But we may note from the various orders produced before us that normally in the case of grant of tax exemptions as an incentive to industry the exemption orders have generally H taken the form of Government order rather than a notification. But in the - PINE CHEMICALS v. ASSESSING AUTHORITY [V. RA.\1ASWAMI, J.) • 195 case of other exemptions though they are also under section 5 of the local A Act they have taken the form of notification. Thus the pattern followed in Jammu & Kashmir seems to be that in respect of exemptions from payment of taxes following Cabinet decision on policy matters and. incentive they have taken the form of a Government order. It is necessary to refer this aspect because in later modifications while superseding the earlier order or notifications, the Government have followed the specific pattern and have B used the word 'orders' in cases of grant of incentive and the word 'notifications' in the other cases. It may also be pointed out that the Government orders 159 and 414 were also understood and treated as such exemption orders as seen from the publicity given to them by the Government while inviting entrepreneurs to C establish inJustries in J arnmu & Kashmir and certain other communications to the parties. The booklet pcblished by the Government in December, 1975 under the heading "Incentives to Developmnet of Industries in Jarnmu & Kashmir" contained incentives available for small scale in~ustries as also large and medium scale industries. The above said two Government Orders were reproduced in this booklet as the orders relating to incentives available D to large and medium scale industries. Another brochure issued in March, 1978 under the heading 'The State Marches Towards Industrial Development' after noting the efforts made by the Government to invite industrial enterprises from outside the State to locate the industries in Jarnmu & Kasumir and the response by the industrialist, listed the package of incentives under the heading 'Incentives Available to help you establish E your beautiful industrial ventures in the J & K State'. Item 5 of this list related to 'exemption from certain taxes'. This was followed by the Finance Minister's Budget Speech for the year 1978-79 in which the Finance Minister stated: "We have to continue a consistent policy of support and F protection to industry and attract as many new unirs as we can, both in order to increase the employment opportunity and to achieve better economic growth. It is as such proposed tocontinue the grant of exemption from payment of sales tax on the goods manufactured by new units for a period of ten years G from the date the unit goes into production." Subsequent to this speech of the Finance Minister another Brochure was published by the Government on the 7th September, 1978 which referred to the sustained efforts made by the Govem;nent to· involve successful and experienced entrepreneurs from all over the country in H 196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] I S. C.R. A setting up the industries in J & K and incentives available to the industries. In page 14 of this Brochure "Exemption from Sales Tax and toll tax for 10 Y years and exemption from CST' is listed as one of the incentives available in the State. Obviously these announcements; references and statements relating to exemption from sales tax refer to'G.O. 159-Ind. dated 26.3.1971 and G.O. 414-Ind. dated 25.8.1971.