Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.—Smt. Rachna Kesarwani, petitioner herein is the widow and legal representative of Amit Kumar Kesarwani, who died on 4th June, 2009 in an accident. He was a registered dealer under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred as ‘’the erstwhile Act’) since 3rd February, 2005. After introduction of U.P. Value Added Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred as ‘’U.P. VAT Act, 2008'), he filed applications dated 12th February, 2008 in Form VII and VIII purporting to be under Section 17(5) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 for validation of registration certificate issued under the erstwhile Act. It appears that the aforesaid applications were accompanied by requisite fees and other documents. However, no formal order was passed by the registering authority on the aforesaid applications.

2. It seems that the State Government had floated a scheme of Group Insurance for all registered dealers by the name of Traders Accident Insurance Scheme. For the period 12th November, 2008 to 11 November, 2009, United India Assurance Co. Ltd. was appointed as the insurer liable to settle claims under the Group Insurance Scheme. The Additional Commissioner (Accounts), Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh vide letter dated 25th November, 2008 circulated information in this regard to all Joint Commissioners. Paragraph 3 of the said letter contains the salient features of the Insurance Scheme some of which relevant for the purpose of the instant case are reproduced below :

(i) okf.kT;dj foHkkx mRrj izns'k 20 tksUl esa foHkDr gS] ftlds vUrxZr dqy 45 lEHkkx gSaA bu 45 lEHkkxksa ds TokbUV dfe'uj ¼dk;Z0½ okf.kT;dj ds ikl vius lEHkkx esa iathd`r O;kikfj;ksa dh foLr`r lwpuk miyC/k gS ftls chek dEiuh }kjk vius Lrj ls] vko';drkuqlkj] izR;sd lEHkkx ls izkIr fd;k tk ldrk gSA lEcfU/kr foRrh; o"kZ esa lEHkkxokj u;s iathd`r O;kikfj;ksa ,oa iathdj.k fujLr fd;s x;s O;kikfj;ksa ls lEcfU/kr lwpuk Hkh izR;sd lEHkkx ds TokbUV dfe'uj ¼dk;Z0½ okf.kT;dj ls chek dEiuh }kjk izkIr dh tk ldrh gS A

(ii) iathd`r O;kikfj;ksa dh nq?kZVuk ls e`R;q gksus dh n'kk esa chek dEiuh }kjk lEHkkxh; TokbUV dfe'uj ¼dk;Z0½ okf.kT;dj dh laLrqfr ij izFker% iz'uxr chfer /kujkf'k :0 4]00]000&00 ¼:0 pkj yk[k ek=½ ,oa vU; YkkHk] ;fn dksbZ gS] thfor fof/kd fookfgrk iRuh@ifr dks miyC/k djkbZ tk;sxh vkSj ;fn nks ;k nks ls vf/kd fof/kd ifRu;ka thfor gSa rks chfer /kujkf'k cjkcj cjkcj lHkh fof/kd ifRu;ksa eas ckWVh tk;sxh A thfor iRuh@ifr u gksus dh n'kk esa lEcfU/kr O;kikjh }kjk e`R;q ls iwoZ bl chek ds lEcU/k es fd;s x;s ukfeus'ku rFkk ukfeus'ku ds vHkko es l{ke U;k;ky; ds mRrjkf/kdkj izek.ki= ds vk/kkj ij lEHkkxh; TokbUV dfe'uj ¼dk;Zikyd½ dh laLrqfr ij chfer /kujkf'k dk Hkqxrku chek dEiuh }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA

(iii) izR;sd iathd`r O;kikjh] tks fnukad 12&11&2008 dks iathd`r Fkk rFkk nq?kZVuk dh frfFk rd iathd`r cuk jgk vFkok mDr chek vof/k ds nkSjku nq?kZVuk dh frfFk ls iwoZ iathd`r gqvk ,oa nq?kZVuk dh frfFk rd iathd`r cuk jgk] Lor% vkPNkfnr ekuk tk;sxkA

3. It appears that Anil Kumar Kesarwani, husband of the petitioner died in a road accident on 4th June, 2009 and thereafter the petitioner being his widow and legal representative moved an application for insurance claim on 7th October, 2009. She also filed an application before the respondent No. 3, for cancellation of registration under U.P. VAT Act, 2008 w.e.f. 4th June, 2009.

4. The department, taking into consideration the application filed by late Anil Kumar Kesarwani for validation of the registration certificate issued under the erstwhile Act,and the application for the grant of new registration after expiry of the said period, proceeded to issue a certificate of registration in Form XI validating the registration certificate under the erstwhile Act w.e.f. 26th January, 2005 till 4th June, 2009, when business was discontinued on account of death of Anil Kumar Kesarwani. However, the Insurance Co. after considering the claim for insurance filed by the petitioner refused to honour the same and the decision of the Insurance Co. was com