TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (11) TMI 613
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....89. The petitioners were granted eligibility certificate under section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 for a period of seven years with effect from January 28, 1989 to January 27, 1996. A copy of the order has been filed as annexure 3 to the writ petition. By paragraph 5 of the order the benefit was, however, restricted and was to be effective with effect from October 26, 1989. The reason for not making the benefit admissible to the petitioner, as indicated in para 5 of the order is that the petitioner was granted registration certificate under the Indian Factories Act, 1948 on October 26, 1989. The petitioner aggrieved by the restriction contained in para 5 of the order granting eligibility certificate filed the present writ petition w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Level Committee on July 7, 1994 for making the benefit admissible with effect from January 28, 1989. Their application was, however, rejected on the ground that the review is possible only if it is moved within 30 days of the order sought to be modified. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which also met the same fate on the same ground that the application was beyond limitation. 5.. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that the trade tax authorities have refused the relief on the ground of limitation though it was humanly impossible to move application for making the relief admissible, which was curtailed, only after the registration certificate was modified under the Factories Act. 6.. The facts a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ull period of seven years and that on modification of the registration certificate, the petitioner would be entitled for the relief for the whole period. The only hurdle which came in the way of the petitioner, according to the opposite parties is limitation part for review of the order. In our view, the petitioners could move for making the benefit admissible to him regarding curtailed period only after the authorities under the Factories Act had modified the registration certificate and not before that. Therefore, it was not possible to move any application earlier. 8.. It is true that in view of the later developments which took place after filing of the writ petition the position has changed. Needless to indicate the subsequent develop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch facts. So far the objections that once the petitioners had moved application before the Divisional Level Committee and before the appellate authority, he could only move for revision of those orders is concerned, in our view, on the circumstances indicated above, the plea of availability of remedy by revision would not come in the way of the petitioner. The authorities have not rejected the application on merit. As indicated earlier, the same has also not been disputed before us. The date of starting of production, namely, November 1, 1988 and the date of first sale, namely, January 28, 1989 both are covered by the period of the registration certificate under the Factories Act, in view of the modification of the said certificate by orde....