units during a particular period n certain backward areas of Maharashtra as well as for dispersal of the Industries. At para 17 of the order, the Tribunal referring to Sahney Steel & PressWorks ltd 228 ITR 253 (SO holds that the nature of the receipt would depend upon the scheme under which a subsidy is given. The Special Bench gave a finding that in the earlier order of Reliance Industries ltd for 1985-86 (IT appeal no. 1418 (Bom) of 1988 and 75554 of 1989) the Tribunal examined the 1979 scheme of the Govt of Maharashtra tracing the background of the subsidy from 1965 when it was first given, and each and every scheme thereafter and proceeded to compare the 1979 scheme with the Andhra Pradesh Scheme. The Andhra Pradesh Scheme was the subject matter of judgment in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd (Supra).The Special Bench observed that the Tribunal after detailed analysis of the schemes came to the conclusion that the Maharashtra scheme Was materially different from the Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh scheme ( the latter was the subject in Ousad industries 162 STR 784 (M.P.) The Tribunal on and analysis of the 1979 package scheme came to the conclusion that the thrust of the scheme was that the assessee would become entitled that the object of the incentive even before the commencement of the business which implied that object of the incentive was to finance a part of the cost of setting up of the factory in the notified backward area. According to the Tribunal, the Scheme was for industrial development of the backward districts as well as generation of employment and hence there was direct nexus with investment in fixed capital assets. The sales tax incentive had been envisaged as an "alternative, to disbursement and by its very nature would be available to the assesses only after the production has commenced. The Special Bench, after appreciating the ratio of the previous decision in Reliance Industries case (IT Appeal No. 1418/1988 and 7544/89) held that the observation of the Tribunal in Bajaj Auto case (IT reference -No 49 and 11-01) (Born) of 1991) was not supported by any reason as to why it was felt that the earlier order of the Tribunal in Reliance Industries case referred only to the form of the Scheme and not their substance in para 108 of the order in Reliance Industries case, the Tribunal found that in Andhra Pradesh Scheme, the object was to stimulate rapid industrialization throughout the state, whereas under the Maharashtra Scheme, the aim was to disperse the industries outside the Bombay, Thana - Pune belt and to speed up the pace of industrialization in the developing regions of the state. Under the Maharashtra Scheme, no incentive was available to industries in the developed regions of the state. The second point of difference related to the quantum of the sales tax incentive which was uniform to "all eligible units under the Andhra Pradesh Scheme, but not so under the Maharashtra scheme, under which the quantum depended on the area in which the industry is located. The third point of distinction was that in the Andhra Pradesh scheme incentive, was in the form of refund of sales tax subject to maximum of equity capital, whereas under the Maharashtra scheme, it was either in form of sales tax exemption and interest free unsecured loans. Further the incentives in the Maharashtra Scheme were subject to monetary limits directly related to fixed-capital investment. Another
