MARKANDEY KATJU, J.

This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the respondent No. 1 be directed to modify the eligibility certificate granted to the petitioner under section 4-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 and to direct that the said certificate should be treated as effective from the date of first sale.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm registered under the U. P. Sales Tax Act. It established a unit for manufacturing of stone grits. The production in the said unit started on November 30, 1986 and the date of first sale was December 3, 1986. It is alleged in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that since the number of workers in the said unit were less than 10 at the time of starting of production the petitioner could not apply for registration under the Factories Act since under section 2 (m) of the Factories Act only those factories can be registered in which the number of workers are 10 or more.

It is alleged in paragraph 4 of the writ petition that when the number of workers in the petitioners unit exceeded 10, the petitioner applied for registration under the Factories Act on November 24, 1988 and the said registration was granted with effect from the said date. Since the petitioners unit was a new unit it applied for exemption under section 4-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act. The respondent No. 1 granted the eligibility certificate, a true copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition. However, while the eligibility certificate has been granted for seven years from the date of first sale, i. e. , December 3, 1986 up to December 2, 1993, the effective exemption from sales tax has been granted from November 24, 1988, i. e. , the date of registration under the Factories Act. Accordingly, assessment order under the Sales Tax Act for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 have been passed against the petitioner. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed this petition in this Court.

A counter-affidavit has been filed but there is no serious denial of the factual allegations in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the department, however, urged that in view of the amendment to the U. P. Sales Tax Act by U. P. Act No. 28 of 1991 which has inserted sub-section (5) (c) in section 4-A, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. U. P. Act No. 28 of 1991 substituted a new sub-section (5) with effect from September 13, 1985. The relevant part of the said sub-section (5) reads as follows :

" (5) A manufacturer shall be entitled to the facility of exemption from, or reduction in the rate of tax, notified under sub-section (1) -

(a ). . . . . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . . . .

(c) in relation to a new unit referred to in clause (1) of the Explanation, where the application for registration under the Factories Act, 1948 is made on, and the registration is granted with effect from, a date later than the date of commencement of the period of facility notified under sub-section (1), then subject to the provisions of clause (b), only for part of the period, notified under sub-section (1), which shall be computed from the date from which such registration becomes effective, till the end of the period of such facility. "

Learned counsel for the department has placed reliance on several decisions of this Court in which it has been observed that the effective exemption can only be granted from the date of registration under the Factories Act, vide Sagar Jute Udyog v. State of U. P. 1993 UPTC 898, Rainbow Engineering and Forging Works v. Divisional Level Committee 1993 UPTC 747, Poonam Oil Industries v. Divisional Level Committee 1992 UPTC 745, J. V. Pack Company (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of U. P. 1991 UPTC 622, Writ Petition No. 34 of 1992, Neat Biotic Drugs and Pharmaceutical Laboratories v. State of U. P. decided on July 15, 1992, etc.

We have perused the above decisions but in none of them the question whether sub-section (5) (c) of section 4-A i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document